2006-09-22

Statements by Members
Canadian ForcesMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I recently met with a special family in my riding. The Spence family has a long, proud tradition of military service going back several generations. The father, Rick Spence, is a 27 year veteran who serves in our Canadian air force. 
His son, Private Michael Spence, is a member of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment. Tragically, he was critically wounded serving on operations in Afghanistan. After meeting with his parents, Rick and Christina, I am extremely pleased to report that Michael is in good spirits and responding well to treatment. In fact, he is on the Hill today for the rally.
One thing Michael wanted me to express is that he is only one of thousands of brave Canadian men and women serving in Afghanistan today, and that it is his hope that they receive the honour and full support of all Canadians for the dangerous but important work they are doing. We heard today from President Karzai how essential this work is. 
As a 20 year veteran of the armed forces, I salute our brave soldiers who are truly making a difference.
My colleagues and I wish Michael a speedy recovery. We will keep him and his family in our prayers.
ChinaHon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, China is the fourth largest economy in the world, boasting unprecedented economic growth and providing tremendous trade and investment opportunities for Canada. Yet the Conservative government has all but ignored this economic powerhouse.
From the damaging allegations about industrial espionage to the snubbing of China's ambassador to Canada by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the actions of the minority Conservative government are causing the Canadian business community to miss the boat when it comes to trade and investment in China.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is calling on the Conservative minority government to bolster Canadian trade and investment in China and encourage Chinese companies to invest in Canada.
Business leaders are not alone in their desire for a stronger economic relationship with China. The Asia-Pacific Foundation released an opinion poll last week where Canadians named China, not the United States, as the most important potential export market for Canada.
The Conservatives' actions are being noticed by the Chinese government, which recently shut down negotiations to grant Canada approved destination status, effectively killing a multi-million dollar opportunity to allow Chinese tourists to visit Canada.
China's ambassador has felt the need to say that we need mutual respect. The Conservative government--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
Member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is another sad day for Quebec when a member of Parliament echoes the words of the journalist from The Globe and Mail, words that anger all Quebeckers.
The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles took the same shameful position, suggesting that there is a link between the shootings at the École polytechnique, Concordia University and Dawson College and the integration problems experienced by immigrants to Quebec. Even worse, he added fuel to the fire by stating that the gun registry should be abolished and that the billion dollars spent on the registry should have been used to educate and integrate immigrants. It is scandalous.
Yet the journalist's column was decried and denounced by the Prime Minister himself, the Premier of Quebec, all the other members of Parliament and people throughout Quebec.
A member who claims to represent Quebec's interests should formally apologize for his unworthy and unacceptable remarks in the wake of a tragic event.
PovertyMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I recently organized a round table meeting with some of the leaders of Hamilton's immigrant support organizations to discuss how we can better help settle new Canadians into our community.
One of the key priorities raised is the chronic high unemployment and increasing poverty among immigrant families. Fifty-two per cent of recent immigrants to Hamilton live below the poverty line, a shocking and shameful figure that belies the government's claim to support new Canadians.
This is not the first time Hamilton's poverty has been identified. Last spring the Hamilton Income Security Working Group reported to a United Nations meeting in Geneva that tens of thousands of Hamilton's children are living in poverty. That report made it clear that the responsibility for this urgent and desperate crisis falls to our governments which refuse to help with sufficient affordable housing, promised job opportunities and effective child benefit programs.
Poverty is a cancer in my community and across our country. We owe it to all Canadians current and future to work to eliminate it.
Canadian ForcesMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, commemorating the men and women who are serving, being injured and dying for their country and their mission in Afghanistan is an unceasing reminder of the courage and sacrifice of the members of the Canadian Forces and their families at home.
The mother of one injured soldier from my riding inscribed in her letter to me, “Do not let our members of Parliament forget what these soldiers have died for and have been injured for....There is still much work to do over there”.
On Wednesday I learned that another of my constituents, Private Mike McTeague, was seriously injured in Monday's suicide bomber attack. Mike's father, Sean, has joined him at the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. Mike's brother will join him there in the days ahead.
I invite all members to join with me in expressing our best wishes for Private McTeague's full recovery and our thanks to his family, including the family of the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, for their unyielding courage and support.
AtholvilleMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 9, I had the honour of attending the celebrations to mark the 40th anniversary of the municipality of Atholville. 
In every respect, the village of Atholville is second to none. The community has a history marked by one success after another.
The people behind the celebrations deserve all the praise they will receive in the coming year. People like them become models for an entire community and inspire it to achieve excellence.
I would therefore like to congratulate the volunteers who planned the 40th anniversary festivities: chair Gisèle Richard Chiasson, as well as Nicole LeBrun, Suzanne Matte, Françoise Gallant, Jeanette Rioux, Pierre Raymond, Patrick Maltais, Marc-André Savoie, Jean Soucy, Gérard Fallu, Michelle Dion, Gaëtan Cormier, Léonard Poirier, Jacqueline Bard, Georges Giroux, Lucien Chiasson and Judith Thibodeau.
I would also like to thank the mayor, Raymond Lagacé, who hosted the activities on that special day.
Noah's Ride for the CureMr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my wife and I are incredibly proud of our nine year old grandson. 
After seeing a family friend go through a very difficult time fighting cancer, Noah came up with the idea of raising money for cancer research by riding his bicycle from Calgary to Edmonton. In August, Noah and his dad, my son Brent, did the ride. They rode 328 kilometres in two days. I had the privilege of driving one of the pilot cars and in the mirror I observed the grit and determination which this marathon exacted from both of them. 
This nine year old is an inspiration to us all. In the shadow of Terry Fox, whose picture is on the wall in Noah's room, he did the impossible. He has almost met his fundraising goal of $30,000. Anyone who would like to contribute may still do it. Just go to www.NoahsRide.ca.
 Way to go, Noah.
Jewish New Year and RamadanMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night marks a very important religious event for the people of Israel and followers of Ishmael. Jews everywhere will celebrate the Jewish New Year, while Ramadan will begin for Muslims. 
For Muslims, Ramadan marks the anniversary of the revelation of the Quran to the prophet Mohammed. For Jews, tomorrow marks the anniversary of creation. 
These important celebrations represent a special time for people to get together, renew old acquaintances and celebrate the strong ties that unite these communities.
Let us hope that these moments of prayer and reflection will lead all people of the world towards peace, tolerance, justice and mutual understanding. 
We in the Bloc Québécois extend our best wishes to the Jewish and Muslim communities during this time of celebration. 
AfghanistanMr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am one of many Canadians who has been treated well abroad simply because I am Canadian. In high school I had the opportunity to spend a year in the Netherlands as a rotary exchange student where I enjoyed a never-ending series of warm receptions, especially from older people, as a consequence of Canadian sacrifices made during World War II.
About 10 years ago I had the opportunity to live in South Korea for a year and a half. As in Holland, I often received a positive reaction when I said I was Canadian. Once again, I was standing on the shoulders of Canadian soldiers who travelled halfway around the world to fight for freedom and democracy.
I hope that one day, maybe 20 years from now, my son and daughter will have the opportunity to travel and maybe they will choose to go to Afghanistan. At that time I trust they will be warmly received as I was in Holland and Korea. I expect the Afghan people will say, “We appreciate the fact that Canadians were here to help us in our moment of need. It was never easy and it was not always popular, but Canada and Canadian soldiers and aid workers were here when we needed them most. Thank you”.
Howard SteinHon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to advise the House of the death yesterday of an extraordinary Canadian, my constituent and friend, Dr. Howard Stein. Howard is survived by his wife, Justice Sunni Stromberg-Stein of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, his sons Jaime and Jordan, and his mother Anne. 
Howard was an internationally recognized physician, professor and author in rheumatology. He was diagnosed with a terminal illness 17 years ago, and although he had to give up the day to day practice of medicine, he remained active in the medical profession through his writings and teachings at the University of British Columbia.
Howard was determined to devote his remaining years to his family, the community, the health of Canadians and the peace process between Israel and Palestine. In November 2005 Howard Stein was instrumental in organizing Partners in Peace, a series of public dialogues in Vancouver between the Jordanian and Israeli ambassadors to Canada, who have become the best of friends and are continuing Howard's passion and energy toward a peaceful Middle East.
Red Friday RallyMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, thousands of proud Canadians will show their support for our brave men and women who serve with honour in our military by attending a massive rally in front of Parliament Hill.
Thousands more are wearing red from coast to coast to show solidarity for those who risk their lives serving Canada abroad every day.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you made an honourable decision to allow the staff on Parliament Hill to wear red ribbons to support our troops. I thank you wholeheartedly for your decision. I invite these employees to pick up a complimentary red ribbon in my office.
A special thanks goes to my friend Lowell Green and 580 CFRA for bringing the Wear Red Fridays rally to the heart of our country. 
All members should attend and show their support for our troops who serve in over a dozen countries, including Afghanistan, putting their lives on the line for our freedom.
I am proud to stand foursquare behind them and our freedom. God bless them.
AfghanistanMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the House heard today from President Karzai that the way forward for Afghanistan is to move beyond military operations and attack terrorism at its source.
His fine diplomatic speech was as significant for what it did not say. There was no mention of the devastating impact of the counterinsurgency mission leading to the Kandahar quagmire.
Yesterday in the U.S. Karzai was more blunt when he stated, “You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages”. 
President Karzai gave more balanced emphasis to reconstruction, economic development and building civil society than does our government. 
This government needs to understand the reality for too many women in Afghanistan: rape, abuse, neglect, poverty, disease, despair, and widowhood.
Canada must support courageous Afghani women who struggle day in and day out against sexism, brutality and intimidation at the hands of the northern alliance, the warlords, the drug lords as well as the Taliban, all of whom are represented in the Afghani government.
The Canadian government spends $9 on military counterinsurgency--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Davenport.
Domestic WorkersMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today across the world stories of domestic worker abuse must be acknowledged, the victims of which are often women and children. As with all human rights violations, we must stand firmly for the protection of the innocent. 
We know that the weaker elements of our society often find themselves abused and oppressed. In this case, many are beaten, abused, held captive and enslaved.
Human Rights Watch reports that this abuse occurs across the globe in many nations. Sadly, these cases are often hidden by the fact that these victims are trapped in seemingly respectable homes.
Today, I call on Canada, as a leader in human rights advocacy, to stand in solidarity with these tortured souls. We have a responsibility to keep them from being swept under the rug.
World Carfree DayMr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with all of the participants who, like me, respected world carfree day today. Many people in Quebec, Canada and around the world—1,500 municipalities in all—took part in this environmental act.
On foot, by bicycle and by bus, many of us arrived on the Hill this morning without our cars. Those who drive hybrid cars have already earned greenhouse gas credits this year. To everyone else who claims to support Kyoto, I challenge you to practice what you preach.
All members of this House should resolve today to reduce their yearly gas consumption by about a third in any way they can, such as carpooling, or using a bicycle or public transit. We must all choose our own method of reducing greenhouse gases. It is our choice.
Maher ArarHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the principal finding of the O'Connor commission determined that Maher Arar was an innocent person and indeed the innocent victim of American, Syrian and Canadian officials. This now warrants the following actions:
First, that the Canadian government apologize to Maher Arar and his family.
Second, that the government compensate Maher Arar for the ordeal of pain and suffering that he and his family endured.
Third, that the government object to the American government for its breach of domestic and international undertakings in the confinement and rendition of Maher Arar to Syria.
Fourth, that we protest to the Syrian government for its torture of Maher Arar.
Fifth, that Canadians officials who gave false and misleading information to U.S. authorities be held accountable.
Sixth, that the Canadian government implements all the recommendations of the O'Connor Commission.
Finally, that the lesson of this inquiry be factored into our anti-terrorism law and policy that we always comport with the rule of law while protecting our human security.
Liberal Party of CanadaMs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals must be wanting to force unwilling Canadians into another election. In the last few days they have cranked up their fear and smear campaign. This has long been a Liberal tactic to deflect from their own misdeeds and lack of substance.
Take for example a recent rant by the member for Beaches—East York purporting to be outraged about imaginary Conservative slights to women. 
The House will be interested to know about a very real and recent Liberal slight to women. It was a “boys only” weekend held by the Liberal leadership candidate supported by the member for Beaches--East York. That is right, women were excluded from this event. 
Before Canadians listen to trumped up claims about this government, they might want to look at the credibility of Liberal smearmongerers. 
Canada's new government is moving sensibly to provide all Canadians, including women, with a better country and a quality way of life. Women can be proud to be part of this positive change for Canada.

Oral Questions
Member for Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-CharlesHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, diversity, tolerance, accommodation of differences, and the will to live together in peace and respect, these Canadian values are ones that President Karzai wants to engender in Afghanistan. 
However, they have been contradicted right here in Canada by a member of the Prime Minister's caucus. The Conservative MP for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has expressed beliefs that are clearly racist and intolerant. These insults demand the Prime Minister's strong, personal intervention. 
When will he expel this member from Canada's new Conservative government?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can report that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has recognized that those comments were inappropriate which is precisely why he has retracted the comments unequivocally and apologized. That is the appropriate action for a member to take when he realizes that he has made inappropriate remarks as is clearly the case in this instance.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, this situation does not need pontification. It needs rectification. We do not need to hear any more blather from the parliamentary secretary from Alberta.
We need to hear specifically from the Prime Minister's senior minister from Quebec, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. He is equally authorized to answer questions in the House.
Is he not scandalized by his Conservative recruit from Charlesbourg? Has he not asked the Prime Minister to remove that member both from the Conservative caucus and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I have in my briefing binder here a long list of remarks made by Liberal MPs that I find offensive. In some instances they apologized for them. If the members opposite would like, I will start quoting those remarks.
However, I think we should set a new tone in this place and accept that when a member makes a mistake and apologizes, and retracts, that it is sufficient. That is what the member has done. He has been big enough to apologize.
I would like to see the opposition House leader be big enough to accept the apology.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to state that immigrants are responsible for shooting rampages because they are not well-integrated is unacceptable; there is nothing worse than that. That is what we witnessed on TVA last night. These are unacceptable and insulting remarks and intolerant, too. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles applied logic like Jan Wong's to explain the shootings in Quebec, most recently the tragic Dawson College incident. Ms. Wong's new disciple is now placing the blame on Quebec's immigrants.
The Prime Minister had stated, and rightfully so, that Ms. Wong's comments were absurd and irresponsible. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to dismiss the “pro-Wong” member?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has already apologized but I find it surprising that the member for Bourassa is raising this issue as he has often got himself into trouble with his harebrained statements. For example, when talking about immigrants he once stated that sometimes he felt like restoring the deportation act and sending back to their country those who spit on the Canadian flag. 
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and member for Bedrock. The Prime Minister has asked the “pro-Wong” member fromCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charlesto represent his government on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. 
Given that the Prime Minister refuses to strip him of his office, can the government confirm that the comments of the “pro-Wong” member from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles represent the government's policy on the rights of immigrants living in Quebec? Why on earth has the Prime Minister not removed this member from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on this point. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has already apologized for his statements.
However, the member from Bourassa made his remarks against immigrants and in favour of deporting immigrants in 1995, and we are still waiting for his apology.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Bourassa, and we have to hear him.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I expect the Conservative members from Quebec to condemn the actions of their colleague, the “pro-Wong” member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
We should also question the way the political lieutenant, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, chooses his candidates. We know about an e-mail sent last December explaining to Ian Brodie the criteria for choosing these Conservative candidates, and I quote: “Neither IQ level, nor political astuteness are prerequisites to be a candidate”. 
Does the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities condemn the “pro-Wong” member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, here we go again.
Let us be clear, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles realized his comments were inappropriate, which is why he withdrew them and apologized.
However, 11 years later, we are still waiting for the member for Bourassa to apologize for suggesting that immigrants should be deported. I am asking again whether the member for Bourassa will apologize for his utterly inappropriate comments.
TaxationMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government, which promised to resolve the fiscal imbalance in the next federal budget, told us that it would share its intentions in the fall budget statement. It is high time.
Can the Minister of Finance acknowledge the extent of the problem right now and give us an idea of the total amount he intends to give back to Quebec and the provinces?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the  Minister of Finance and this government are engaging in consultations with all the provinces on this important issue. 
We will bringing forward key proposals on strengthening equalization and territorial funding, formula financing programs, a new approach on long term funding for post-secondary education and training, a new framework for long term funding support for infrastructure programs, a new approach for allocating unplanned federal surpluses and the list goes on. I know the Bloc will be very interested, as will all members of the House, when this proposal comes forward in a few weeks.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that eliminating the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and Quebec starts with increased transfer payments and equalization reform; and that the final settlement is a new, fairer sharing of the tax base and the end of the federal government's power to spend in Quebec's jurisdictions?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I know the duly elected Government of Quebec has made it very clear to our government in all consultations what the issues are in Quebec. Quebeckers know, sadly, that the Bloc will not be able to deliver on these programs. Only an elected government in the House of Commons will be able to do that.
Softwood LumberMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the Bloc Québécois proposed ways to support the forest industry, the Minister of International Trade showed some openness to our ideas, but his colleague, the Minister of Industry, flatly refused to provide any help. It seems the Minister of Finance has also chosen a laissez-faire approach: apparently, the fiscal update will not contain any new tax measures.
Does this mean that the government does not intend to help the forest industry work through the challenges it faces?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the opportunity to comment on this issue this morning. I appreciate my colleague's question about the forest industry, which gives us the opportunity to tell Canadians that 90% of the country's forest industry supports the agreement because it will bring back stable employment and give the forest industry a better idea of what to expect from the economic situation. This is why they support us.
The Government of Quebec also supports us, as the Bloc Québécois should know. The FTQ supports us too. The Bloc Québécois supported us during the vote on Monday. This is a very good agreement that brings stability to the industry, which is what the industry wanted.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement will not fix everything. As the government is well aware, the industry is facing far more serious problems than the dispute. Furthermore, it is possible that every penny returned will be taxable, despite the fact that the reimbursements include a loss corresponding to the dollar's nearly 50% growth over the past four years.
Is the minister aware that under the current rules, the government is taxing a loss and that this problem must be corrected this year or it will be too late?
Ms. Helena Guergis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that two national governments are supporting the softwood lumber agreement, that all of Canada's three major producing softwood lumber provinces are supporting the agreement and that the Province of Quebec and the Premier of Quebec are supporting the agreement. 
The return of the duties that will come back into the industry in Quebec will be what the industry has asked for and what they require in order to build the industry and work toward a stronger North American softwood lumber industry. 
AfghanistanHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today President Karzai could not have been more clear on the need to move “beyond military operations toward a more balanced mission”. Yesterday, to a U.S. audience, he said that “bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages”, and yet the government is spending nine times more on the military than we do on aid.
Could the government explain how its plans to escalate our military presence, by first sending in tanks and now by proposing to send in fighter jets, is achieving a balanced objective in Afghanistan?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain any better than Hamid Karzai did in this place this morning in a speech for which half the Liberal MPs were not even present to listen to.
The NDP members say that they are in favour of multilateralism but they want to pull out of Afghanistan unilaterally. They say that they are in favour of the United Nations but they are against our participation in the world's most important UN mission. They say that they are in favour of peace and development but they do not want protection so that we can do civil reconstruction and development. They say that they are in favour of human rights and women's rights but they want to remove our soldiers so that those rights will be eliminated by the Taliban. We are tired of the NDP's hypocrisy.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, the solution in Afghanistan cannot be a military solution. President Karzai himself just spoke to us about the need to move beyond military operations.
Yesterday he said that the problem cannot be solved by bombing villages. However, at present, Canada is spending only one dollar on aid and development for every nine dollars spent on military operations.
Can the government tell us how the deployment of tanks and fighter jets is achieving balance in Canada's commitment to Afghanistan?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader's comments on Afghanistan are so ridiculous that it is no surprise that President Karzai refused to meet with him.
Today, the president of Afghanistan clearly expressed the democratic will of his nation to have the security needed to be able to rebuild a civil society and offer aid. Canada, this government, has already increased aid by $1 billion for the next ten years, which is the largest contribution anywhere in the world. We stand in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan.
Access to InformationStephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister quoted from a PCO memo and falsely claimed that it revealed that Liberals routinely receive the names of people requesting information under the Access to Information Act.
Today, the media has revealed that this was a misrepresentation, that Liberals did not receive the names of ATIP requesters. That apparently only happens under the new Conservative government. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Stephen Owen:  They all wish that they would be more liberal, Mr. Speaker.
Given that the member has misrepresented the public service and misled this House, will he resign?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I will take the words of our government officials on this matter because they say that this has been a long-standing practice. However, we do not need to just believe them. We can listen to the former information commissioner, John Reid, who, in his report in 1999, explicitly blamed the office of then minister, Art Eggleton, for having systematically leaked the names of requesters of access to information to the political staff of the minister's office. That practice was a violation of the law which we reject and it will not continue under this government.
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, the government has known for more than six months about this unlawful disclosure to political staff and it has done nothing until this week when it was caught.
Will the government assure the House that all political staff found to have violated the law by the privacy commissioner will be dismissed and will the parliamentary secretary table that memo immediately?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, yes, and not only will I table it, I will quote from it again. Yesterday the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet of the Privy Council Office told us that, “This was a discussion only among officials. There was no involvement by political staff and the summary report of the discussion by officials was a practice that predated this government. These types of summary reports were regularly shared with members of the previous government's prime minister's communications office”. 
 It turns out that the bureaucrats were passing on a bad habit in which they were forced to engage by the previous government, to which this week we have put an end.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister  is not saying is that the reports were released without the names. Names have only been required since the arrival of this new minority Conservative government. This is the truth.
The media now tells us that on March 1, 2006, the PMO was given the option of no longer receiving those emails from the PCO. However, one week later, two more names of individuals employed by the PMO were added. This is proof that the statements of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister were false.
Your—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh! 
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, this is the desperation of the Liberals who see that we have finally caught on to yet another one of their scams. She is absolutely wrong, Yes, it is true that two political staff asked to be added to a distribution list, not for names dealing with requesters for information, not for private information or private names, but for the minutes of weekly conference calls dealing with security and pandemic issues.
 Yes, our government and our political staff want to ensure we know what is going on to combat pandemics and to maintain national security. Now we will also reverse the practices of the Liberals and protect--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has no honour. He is misleading Canadians once again today.
How can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister claim that no one read the email from the PCO when, two weeks earlier, Sandra Buckler had two more names of employees from her office added to the distribution list?
Will the Prime Minister ever assume his responsibilities, and stop misleading this House and all Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has the floor.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today I presented the opinion of the Privy Council Office that there was a long-standing practice under the previous government, which I just cited verbatim, of furnishing names of applicants for information under the Access to Information Act to political officers of the previous government. Yes, sir, it is true.
I am sorry, but it is true that two political staff asked that their names be added to a list to receive information on pandemics and national security issues.
It is the Liberals that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over a month ago, the American border was closed to exports of Quebec potatoes after golden nematodes were found in a field south of Montreal. Producers took the necessary steps to prevent the nematodes from spreading, including washing their products and equipment.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food comply with Quebec's demands and exert all due pressure on Washington to lift the embargo on exports of Quebec potatoes? He just recently met with his American counterpart, and I imagine they discussed more than just the weather.
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned about the presence of this parasite and its impact on the farming industry in Quebec. That is why I have discussed this problem on several occasions with Mike Johans, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and with Mr. Vallières, Minister of Agriculture of Quebec. We are working to minimize the impact of border controls as quickly as possible, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely in order to reassess the need for compensation, as required.
Mr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend to pay the bill that Quebec is going to send him for purchasing or renting equipment to wash the potatoes and the machinery needed to harvest the potato crop? Will he speed up the analysis and research process so that potato producers, vegetable producers and horticulturalists are not further penalized financially?
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we met again this week directly with the producers who are affected, although many producers are affected, but we met with the ones who have this parasite on the farm. We have met with them with our Agriculture Canada staff. We continue to work with them and agriculture officials from the province of Quebec.
 We are investigating to see whether there are any gaps in the coverage between production insurance or other programming to ensure farmers can not only get the crop off this year but can sell it as quickly as possible, regionalizing the problem as quickly as possible so that farmers are not disproportionately affected in Quebec.
Status of WomenMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women told me yesterday, during a very good conversation, that the Women's Program, which expires on September 26, will be extended. 
Can the minister confirm here in this House what she said to me, that the program will be extended and therefore maintained? Also—and this is where things get dicey—does she intend to increase the budget as the Standing Committee on the Status of Women asked her to?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, the terms and conditions will be under review and will be renewed in a timely fashion. In fact, this represents the grants and contributions that we have been discussing in the House.
 I find it very interesting that the status of women did not provide them to my office until this morning. They will be dealt with before the end of today.
Employment InsuranceMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development refused to comment on extending the transitional provisions in place for protecting seasonal workers in eastern Quebec, Montmagny-L'Islet and the North Shore, which will expire on October 7, claiming that these provisions are under review. The provisions have been in place for six years.
Will the minister stop hiding behind these excuses because on October 7 seasonal workers will lose eight weeks of benefits if the provisions are not extended? October 7 is in two weeks. 
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing things. As is the custom with this new government, when we have something to announce, we will announce it then.
Access to InformationHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that the Prime Minister's staff committed serious breaches of the Privacy Act. Since then, the minority government, through the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, has tried to shift the blame to public servants and the previous government. We now know that the contrary is true, that when asked by public servants to end this practice, the Prime Minister's staff wanted to enhance it.
When will this so-called new government drop its new tendency of trying to intimidate public servants to get them to act in a partisan way?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Liberals are making an honest mistake. I do not know. However, on March 1, two employees of the political staff at the Prime Minister's Office asked to be added to a distribution list for information on pandemics and national security. The name of a journalist was included in a March 15 e-mail after their request. That was when we learned that it was common practice for the former government to reveal and distribute the names of parties requesting information. We have put an end to this practice.
Mauril Bélanger: That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The previous government did not ask for the names of those making requests for information.
Since we have learned staff in the Prime Minister's Office have committed serious breaches of the Privacy Act regarding access to information, the so-called new government has tried to lay the blame at the feet of public servants or the preceding government, its new mantra. We now know it was quite the contrary. When invited by public servants to stop their practice, the Prime Minister's staff instead asked that it be enhanced. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister can bully us all he wants, we will fight back. The problem is the growing tendency of-- 
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we received this advice from the Privy Council Office, that this was a long-standing practice of the former government. I will table the email that I have quoted from verbatim.
 Yesterday, CBC quoted a former Liberal staffer saying that, yes, this was a regular practice of the former government. In 1999 the information commissioner identified the office of Art Eggleton as having engaged in this practice. Yesterday, Commissioner Stoddart, in a conversation with the Treasury Board president, said that there were two complaints about these kinds of leaks coming from the offices of former Liberal ministers. When will they apologize?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister continues to be less than forthright with the House about serious breaches of the privacy laws of the Prime Minister's Office. Yesterday he unjustly smeared the public servants charged with handling ATIP requests. He attempts today again to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadian. Today media reports prove we cannot believe what the parliamentary secretary tells us.
The parliamentary secretary shattered the integrity of the public office he holds. Will he resign?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I will stay here and I will not be intimidated into stopping to identify and throw the light on the corrupt practices of the previous Liberal government, which clearly and according to the public service allowed this practice to become a standard operating procedure under it.
We have been absolutely clear that this government will not tolerate the unveiling of names of requesters of information. We are going to put an end to the Liberal practice.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that a party that campaigned on integrity acts like a bunch of trained seals in supporting the parliamentary secretary, who should be stepping down from his office.
The parliamentary secretary continues to fabricate the facts. As bad, employees in the Prime Minister's Officer are complicit in what the parliamentary secretary is doing in flouting the laws of Canada. The parliamentary secretary's actions, as much as he tries, cannot be covered up.
Will the Prime Minister at least ask the parliamentary secretary to step aside?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, there was a pretty big forced resignation of the Liberal government at the hands of the Canadian electorate in January of this year because the Canadian people had enough of the kinds of corruption, law-breaking and violation of our democratic practices in our country. 
One of those practices was to systematically leak the names of requesters of information to the political offices of that government, as identified by the information commissioner, as identified yesterday by the PCO. We will put an end to that practice because we are a government that is all about accountability.
Airline IndustryMr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question concerns an issue that is important to those who work within the airline industry and to those who are passengers on Canada's airlines. My question is for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Could the minister please inform the House how this Conservative government is working to address the issue of flight attendant ratios?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is committed to aviation safety, as everyone knows, and recognizes the important contribution that flight attendants make, particularly with respect to the orderly evacuation of aircraft. 
Because we are continuing to study this issue, we will not table any changes to the flight attendant ratio in the near future. We will continue, indeed, to consider feedback to help facilitate a decision in this matter that ensures the highest level of security to Canadians.
AfghanistanMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we know from talking to Afghan women in Canada and in Afghanistan that the counter-insurgency is making things worse for Afghan women.
Yesterday at the UN General Assembly, speaking in reference to the combat violence, Hamid Karzai said, “That is why today 200,000 of our students who went to school two years ago are no longer able to do so”.
Is it not time for the minister to admit that counter-insurgency is in fact making things worse, not better, for Afghan women?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when I listen to members of the NDP, it is like I am listening to a bunch of diletantes. They come up with one loony idea after another.
We and NATO have to leave the military in Afghanistan to provide security. It is because of the Taliban trying to burn schools that we are there reacting against the Taliban.
 If the NDP had its way, the Taliban would return and turn the country into a nightmare.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, aside from the minister's personal attacks, Afghan women tell us that life is getting worse, not better. Today I heard from Afghan women in Canada. Only 12% of women in Afghanistan have access to medical care. Many die from complications during pregnancy. Women are still subjected to forced marriage and abduction. We know that we cannot destroy terrorism by bombing villages.
Is it not time to refocus this mission on building peace and bringing real security to all Afghan women, and not waging war?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, we are devoting considerable funds and effort to development. We are also devoting a lot of effort to governance. However, we also have to provide security.
 If the House wants an example of the Taliban, the most recent case where four of our soldiers died, an old man rode in on a bicycle and blew a bomb off in a bunch of children. The Taliban does not care about human life and they will not care about women if they return. 
Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister publicly chastised Jan Wong for making racial slurs regarding immigrants in Quebec, and we agreed. Now we find out that one of his own Quebec MPs has voiced similar views and even suggested that Quebec's treatment of immigrants likely inspired the tragic shootings at Dawson College.
The Conservative caucus is harbouring a member who holds views that the Prime Minister has called absurd, prejudice, irresponsible and without foundation.
When will the Prime Minister of that minority government do the right thing and kick him out of caucus?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the member in question did the right thing. He recognized that the remarks he made were totally inappropriate. He has taken those remarks back. He has apologized for those remarks.
We are still to this day waiting for the Liberal member for Bourassa to apologize for suggesting that Canada should deport immigrants that he does not like.
Michael Savage: First, Mr. Speaker, I think if you check the record, I am not sure if the member did apologize. He may have withdrawn his remarks. It would be nice to hear him say “I am sorry”. 
That is simply not good enough, though, on behalf of the Prime Minister. What kind of message does that send about the minority Conservative government's views toward immigrants?
The government member has the honour of sitting on the justice and human rights committee. Will the Prime Minister have that member immediately removed from that committee, and take it one step further and kick him out of caucus?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that member has done what members should do when they say something that is inappropriate. He has retracted his words. He has recognized that they were wrong and inappropriate, that he misspoke.
I wonder why the Liberals had a former cabinet minister, who is sitting on the frontbench over there, who said that immigrants he did not like should be deported. When will he at least apologize, let alone being kicked out of his caucus?
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we often hear members of that minority government say that Canada was built by immigrants. It is now obvious the Prime Minister does not have the courage to stand up for immigrants, particularly those who have chosen Quebec as their home. This is scandalous and it must be addressed.
When will the Prime Minister fire the MP for the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and send a clear message that racism will not be tolerated?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the member has apologized.
 However, speaking of immigration, this is the government that immediately cut the right of landing fee in half, the head tax, that had been imposed by the Liberals on immigrants. This is the government that has created a national agency for the recognition of foreign credentials. This is the government, under the leadership of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which is doing what it can to attract quality immigrants to help build our country. This is the government that apologized for racist immigration acts of the past like the Chinese head tax, for which the former Liberal government never had the guts to apologize.
Yasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, as is the tradition of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, he has been stonewalling and Canadians will not stand for it.
The government has not done any favours for immigrants. It should practise what it preaches and stand by a zero tolerance policy against racism and those who perpetuate it.
When will the Prime Minister of the minority government fire the Quebec MP who spewed these absurd, prejudice and irresponsible remarks?
Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member raises the issue of immigration. There is no government in history that has a worse record on immigration than the former Liberal government. In 1995 it froze funding for settlement agencies which meant that people arriving here, who had trouble with the language and trouble integrating, received no help from the government.
We reversed that in the budget by announcing $307 million in new funding for settlement agencies to help immigrants get better outcomes. We are a pro-immigration party. We want more immigrants. We want them to have better outcomes.
Program for Older Worker AdjustmentMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development says that she is continuing to examine the feasibility of the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, several unemployed workers from Huntingdon are being told by a departmental employee that the program will be announced in two or three weeks and that he would be pleased to have coffee with them to celebrate.
Rather than having this employee keep an entire community on tenterhooks—a community still reeling from recent plant closures in the area—should the minister not immediately announce the introduction of this program?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, as members know, because I have said it in here on so many occasions, the government truly is concerned about what happens to our displaced workers, our older workers, in various sectors. That is why we are undertaking a feasibility study to examine long term solutions for this sector and we will be making announcements soon.
Teleglobe CanadaMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Teleglobe Canada—sold to private interests a few years ago—has announced that it will streamline its activities in Canada and move more than 200 employees to India in the next few months.
Is this decision not a red flag for the government and should Canadian laws be reviewed in order to deal with the new economic reality resulting from globalization?
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Canada was built with foreign capital. The coast-to-coast railway was built with money from England and from the U.S. We are open to foreign capital. That being said, Canada does have the Investment Canada Act, which we enforce. This law states that any foreign investment must be reviewed for net benefits to Canada and to Quebec. We respect this law.
Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 15, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced that the matter of leasing or buying Minto Developments' JDS Uniphase building would be moved “to a new competitive process”. 
Public Works chose to use the advance contract award notice process, which, according to the Auditor General, is not a competitive process.Given that the parliamentary secretary misled the House, why has the Prime Minister not demanded his resignation?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has corrected mistakes made by the Liberal government. We showed transparency by giving potential suppliers the opportunity to tender, but none did. We saved taxpayers money, found a suitable location for the RCMP and did what we had to do for Canadians.
AgricultureMr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as part of our platform the Conservative government promised to give western grain farmers the freedom to make their own marketing decisions and the choice of participating in the Canadian Wheat Board.
Could the Minister of Agriculture please tell us what actions he has taken to provide agriculture producers with freedom of marketing choice?
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question because I certainly do not get any questions on agriculture from the Liberals or the NDP. This is a refreshing change.
This summer I met with producers and industry representatives to discuss marketing choice for people to create a vibrant, voluntary Canadian Wheat Board. Last week I appointed Ken Motiuk, a committed advocate of dual marketing choice, to the Canadian Wheat Board. He has the harness on and he is working on behalf of all farmers. Just this past Tuesday I appointed a task force to give the framework for what a voluntary wheat board might look like.
We are moving ahead with marketing choice. It was a campaign promise and farmers deserve it as quickly as possible.
Child CareMs. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the OECD issued an international report on child care and Canada is at the bottom of the list. It recommends that each country should invest at least 1% of the GDP on child care and Canada has an investment of 0.03%.
Given that child care is very much connected with productivity and economic growth, will the minister commit to success rather than failure and support the NDP child care act in the coming debate on Monday?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member brought this report up because this report just underlines the 13 years of neglect by the previous Liberal government when it comes to child care.
 I am so very proud of Canada's new government for taking action immediately with our two step, universal child care plan. Parents of children under six are now receiving $100 a month to help toward their child care choices that meet their needs.
Fisheries and OceansMs. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, communities in my riding are suffering due to a lack of commitment by the government to reform the west coast fishery: two-thirds of the decision-making here in Ottawa but very little on the west coast; enforcement officers that would stop illegal fishing cut to the bone; a licensing system that leaves small fishermen out in the cold, where it costs them more to go to work than they can earn; and the sellout of seasonal processing plant workers because they cannot access EI.
Will the fisheries minister please tell us when he will take concrete action to resolve these long-standing issues for the sake of the west coast fishing industry.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member will know that this government is continuing a comprehensive Pacific fisheries renewal program. It is a comprehensive program that looks at a number of issues. It enhances compliance and enforcement, salmon enhancement, all the things she is concerned about. 
The minister is very concerned about making this a strong and sustainable fishery, unlike the previous government, and we will meet that goal.
Maher ArarMr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week the government has been dodging questions about the case of Maher Arar. Parliament has unanimously passed a motion that calls for an apology and the whole country regrets what happened.
Now that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and the member for Calgary—Nose Hill have had time to reflect, do they regret jumping to conclusions and convicting Mr. Arar at the time? Will they answer the call made today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to apologize when something inappropriate is said and to personally apologize without further equivocation? Canadians are tired of this hypocrisy.
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we continue to thank Justice O'Connor for the good work that he did on this particular report and all the people who worked with him. We have further said that we want to follow all 23 of the recommendations related to this matter.
If the gentleman would have checked the record he would have seen that back as far as November 4, 2003, we were asking questions. We were asking for a public inquiry. I asked the question then why the government would not spare Canadians millions of dollars and months of delay and simply give Mr. Arar the answers to his fair questions. We are giving him those answers.
AfghanistanMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, reconstruction in Afghanistan is key to creating lasting security in that country. Our government is committed to helping Afghanistan stand on its own as an independent, stable and prosperous nation.
Could the Minister of International Cooperation please tell the House how the government is supporting development efforts in Afghanistan?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's approach to helping Afghanistan is to help the people help themselves. 
Let me share some results that we have attained: 183,000 Afghans now have access to micro-credits, 75% of those are women; 10,000 widows and their families have received food aid; 13,000 communities are involved in the development of 250 schools, 180 community centres, 18,000 wells--
The Speaker: That will conclude question period for today.
The hon. member for Wascana has a point of order.
Points of OrderRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there were references in the House both yesterday and today to certain materials produced or provided by the Privy Council Office in respect of the access to information procedure. We have asked for that material to be tabled, both yesterday and again today. We have not seen it, but apparently the media have.
The parliamentary secretary characterizes that PCO information in a particular way, but the media, who have seen the material, say that the parliamentary secretary is exactly wrong, that he has misrepresented the material and may have misled the House.
As a first step in getting to the bottom of this, it is important that the parliamentary secretary do now what he said earlier in question period he would do, and that is to table that PCO document.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the House leader for the official opposition managed to get to his feet, because he just wasted some time as I already indicated that I would table the document. I am quite happy to do so and I therefore seek unanimous consent to table the e-mail from which I am quoted.
The Speaker: The parliamentary secretary is in a privileged position. He does not need unanimous consent to table the document. The document is therefore tabled.

Routine Proceedings
Criminal CodeMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-352, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (peace officers).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the seconder for helping out on the bill. 
This enactment would amend the Criminal Code to impose more severe penalties on a person or persons who assault peace officers and to eliminate the possibility of parole for those who murder peace officers.
We have to send a very strong message out to people who would inflict harm upon the people who protect us that that type of action will simply not be tolerated. 
We believe the bill would go a long way in acting as a deterrent to protect the integrity of all peace officers in this country.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Canada Elections ActPeter Stoffer:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-353, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (date of general election).
Mr. Speaker, this enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to provide that, subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in September in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this enactment coming into force being held on Monday, September 21, 2009. This change would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend an alternate day if the day set for polling is not suitable. 
This bill would enhance democracy in our country. We would like to see speedy passage of the bill.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by many people from across the country, including from my riding. 
The petition calls on Parliament to immediately halt the deportation of undocumented workers and to find a humane and logical solution to this situation.
Earlier today the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that his government and his party are in support of immigrants. I am hoping that due to these various petitions, he will in fact be supportive of many immigrants who play a vital role in the economy of this country and allow them to stay in Canada.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga and the surrounding Kitchener--Waterloo area.
The more than 200 people who signed the petition are asking the Government of Canada to take all steps necessary to protect our children by raising the age of consent from 14 years of age to 16 years of age.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions. The first is from 275 of my constituents from Saskatoon, Blaine Lake, Speers, Hafford, Hague, Martensville, Warman and other towns around my riding.
The petitioners call on the government to raise the age of protection for children from 14 years of age to 16 years of age. They note the support of the Canadian Police Association and many of the provincial governments for increasing the age of protection. They also note the importance of this move in protecting young people from sexual exploitation.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, in the second petition 32 petitioners from Saskatoon ask the federal government to build a high quality, accessible and affordable community based child care system and to ensure fair and effective income support for Canadian families.
I am proud to be in a government that is indeed moving forward with equitable and accessible initiatives for child care and income support for Canadian families.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, in the last petition the petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not, in their view, applied the current child pornography law in a way that makes it clear that such exploitation of children will be met with swift punishment.
The petitioners call on Parliament to protect our children by taking all the necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are plainly, clearly and flatly outlawed.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present a petition from literally thousands of Canadians from all across the three prairie provinces who call upon the government to recognize the will of Parliament in banning trans fats.
The petitioners point out that they want the government to implement the recommendations of the task force which clearly called upon the government to ban trans fats and get them out of our food supply for all of the very obvious public health reasons. Trans fats do in fact cause obesity, heart disease and diabetes, all of which can be prevented by the elimination of these deadly toxins from our food supply.
They call upon the government to follow the lead of Denmark and become the second country in the world to be trans fat free.
Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by various constituents in my riding who urge Parliament to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 years of age to 16 years of age.
Lloyd St. Amand: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by various constituents in my riding who urge Parliament to re-open the issue of marriage and to defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, I have a 10-page petition. It notes that the Toronto Island Airport is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and has been losing money every year for the last 15 years and that operating an airport is contrary to the tradition of a clean, green, vibrant waterfront and that the Toronto Port Authority is unaccountable and is a rogue federal agency that was created against the wishes of Torontonians.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to abolish the Toronto Port Authority, close the island airport and return the waterfront to the people of Toronto.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderMr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Earlier this week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons  raised an objection pursuant to Standing Order 39 to question No. 90 from the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. The basic argument was that the question was too long. On that basis the parliamentary secretary was arguing that it was out of order and should be struck from the list.
The purpose of Standing Order 39 is analyzed in Marleau and Montpetit at page 438 which states that those questions are put on the order paper “with the intent of seeking from the ministry detailed, lengthy or technical information relating to public affairs”. 
Standing Order 39 is quite clear. There are certain rules that allow us to place before individual ministers, and in rare cases other members of Parliament, detailed questions for information that we require in order to perform our functions as members of this House.
The question that is being challenged by the parliamentary secretary is the only one on the order paper by the member for New Westminster--Coquitlam. Standing Order 39 allows for up to four questions to be on the order paper at any given time by any given member in the House. This is the only question she has on the order paper at this time. Without question it is lengthy; the question has a number of subsections in it. 
There used to be no limit to the number of written questions a member could put on the order paper. About 10 years ago a new rule was introduced that limited the number of questions a member could put on the order paper to a maximum of four at any given time. My colleague is clearly in compliance with that part of the rule in the sense that she only has the one question.
The question is with regard to Afghanistan and the deployment of military resources there. What you have to do, Mr. Speaker, in making your determination as to whether the request from the parliamentary secretary is a reasonable one, is to look at the practice that has grown since the change in the Standing Orders. In particular, I would call to your attention questions that were put forward by Mr. John Cummins, who was a member of the Conservative Party in the last Parliament, and questions--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I rise to remind the hon. member who is experienced in this House that we do not name members of this current House.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am going to have the problem of not knowing which riding he is in: Delta—Richmond East.
 In the last Parliament that member put forward two questions at the same time and they were Question Nos. 5 and 7. Those questions, and I am looking at copies of them right now, run on to a length that is longer, or at least as long as Question No. 90 which is the subject of the objection from this government and the parliamentary secretary at this time. 
Those questions were in fact subsequently answered. They were on fishery items, I believe. The member was then and is still now quite interested in that topic. He was asking as I believe proper, specific questions, wanting specific answers to specific facts, wanting that detail, all of which seems to be well within the spirit and the wording of Standing Order 39 as is Question No. 90.
The position that is being put forward by the government, and the parliamentary secretary on its behalf, is one that is inconsistent with its own practice in the last Parliament when Conservatives were in opposition. Even the parliamentary secretary could go back and look at some of his questions in the last Parliament. They were fairly lengthy as well. It is inconsistent with the practice that has grown up since Standing Order 39 was changed.
I would argue strongly that the motivation behind this is really about the issue itself and the government being unhappy at having to provide this information from the Departments of National Defence and of International Cooperation. 
Just to give an example, this morning in some of the national newspapers in this country in response to information that this same member gathered from the same government in the spring response to written questions, very interesting, factual and needed information came out. 
The hon. member was doing her job in asking those questions and that information was necessary for the debate that is going on around that issue in the country. It is just a glaring example of why we need to be able to ask these types of detailed questions. She was very successful in the information she received. 
Similarly, to the question she is asking now in Question No. 90, there is information there that the country needs to have as this debate goes on with regard to our deployment of troops and resources in Afghanistan at the current time. 
My argument in summation refers to the fact that Standing Order 39 was changed. It limited these questions. She stayed within those boundaries. The questions have to be of reasonable length. If we look at the practice that has grown since the reincarnation of Standing Order 39, she has stayed within the practice that has grown up in that period of time, a practice that the political party now in government followed when they were in opposition.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. This matter has already been raised in the House. I believe that the Speaker is taking the matter under advisement. I would add my own comments to this and would challenge the hon. member, who just made that intervention, on his reading of the spirit of the Standing Orders. 
I would suggest that the question very clearly, if I can call it a question without pluralizing it, violates the spirit of the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are there to provide answers to members of Parliament. It is a system that has worked well, but when an hon. member tries to jam 47 questions under the guise and trying to pass it off as one question, this goes far beyond what was contemplated in the Standing Orders. Quite frankly, it is not reasonable and is a violation of the spirit. I believe it is technically out of order as well. Mr. Speaker, I know you will take all that into consideration when looking at this case.
 I challenge the hon. member as well. He indicated he believes the government is saying this because the government's motivation is not to answer questions on the subject of Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are here to provide information to hon. members. The member has unfairly characterized the motivation behind what the government is doing. We are here to be reasonable. We are here to provide answers to hon. members.
Quite frankly, I could say the same thing. The motivation behind the hon. member is to highlight the NDP's opposition to what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. I could make that claim if that is what it really wants to do. Again, I do not particularly want to probe that nor do I think the hon. member should draw the conclusion that the government is in any way not forthcoming on this issue.
We are very clear where we stand on the subject of Afghanistan. The President of Afghanistan gave a magnificent address and put very clearly before this nation the reasons why we are there. The government is very pleased to talk about Afghanistan and to provide information, but any time an hon. member tries to pack 47 questions under the guise of one question, surely that is far beyond what is contemplated in the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that you take that into consideration in your ruling.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I would like to thank the hon. government House leader and the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for their interventions. Both submissions will be taken under advisement.

Government Orders
Emergency Management Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): When we last considered this item, the hon. member for Yukon had the floor and he has eight minutes remaining.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts.
Members may recall that in the first part of my speech I started out by saying that Liberals support the bill. It is just a reintroduction of a Liberal bill, with a few changes in the basis of the excellent work that we had done related to security after 9/11. We dedicated $9.5 billion on security. We created a department of public safety and emergency and established a national 24/7 government operations centre.
Then I talked about how we are in a new world now, a world that we have to change. We need bills like this to change emergency measures to keep up with a changing world, since 9/11, since the Montreal shootings, and climate changes. Then there are things like ice storms, dramatic hurricanes and tsunamis that we have had, potential meteorites, and diseases like SARS. It is very important that we change with the times and have administration chains to deal quickly with problems.
I also talked about how important it was to have coordinating efforts with the United States because in geographical disasters a border is artificial. We need the people along both sides of the border to have cogent plans to deal with emergencies quickly. Then I went on to talk about how the bill had neglected in certain instances the territorial governments. 
 I would like the people in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut to know I am constantly standing up to ensure that they are included. If they have any other issues that they think have been left out, not included, or having problems, they should please contact me as the critic for the north.
This modern management of emergencies is related to an issue that is dear to my heart and I want to talk about it for a while. I am referring to search and rescue and the ability to have search and rescue planes placed north of 60.
 Right now all our search and rescue planes are based along the border of Canada and the United States. Certainly, that is where our greatest population is and certainly, that is where the greatest number of incidents occur. However, that does not mean that we should ignore the north. 
In fact, half the range of those planes is really not used. They are in a spot where half of the range is not used because half the range would be in the United States, to the south, and some would be out over the oceans, to the south. Whereas, if we had one or two or three, the northern half of the country would be covered. We had actually promised to put four planes north of 60.
Just because most incidents are in the south does not mean we ignore the north. For example, the vast majority of crime in this country is in the south. It does not mean we do not have RCMP in the north. It does a wonderful job in the territories. It does not mean we do not have doctors in the north; they do a wonderful job. It does not mean we do not have food stores in the north because there is a very small population. They all do a wonderful job. Therefore, it is very important that we protect those people.
In the south, arguments could be made that there are a lot more civilian resources available to search for someone in densely populated areas than in the north. In fact, in the north, an accident could be far more critical. We have thousands of flights going over the pole now and a vast increase of activities because of global warming.
 The  Prime Minister has talked about sovereignty in the north, which is a result of global warming. He should accept that. With all this activity going on an accident there could be far more dangerous and critical than one in the south. There is less civilian capability to get to people, drop supplies, drop something warm, and far more chance of dying of hypothermia either on land or in the water. 
I definitely want to continue the argument that I have been making for a long time at the defence committee for search and rescue planes with reasonable coverage north of 60.
 I can be reasonable in the sense that I know these are expensive and there is a whole array of services that go with them, mechanics, et cetera. I am not opposed to a compromise so that these planes could have dual functions because there are other military planes in the north that need to be replaced or other planes that are used for various purposes. I do not mind if we have a dual purpose plane in the north that can do search and rescue and can do these other functions. Therefore, northerners and people who are not Canadians but end up having an accident in the north would be far more protected.
I encourage everyone involved to support the contract which we approved in Parliament some three years ago and see to it that it is finally tendered and done so in a manner that will allow us to have search and rescue planes to cover and protect northerners, people in the territories, the same way they presently protect people in the provinces.
The next item I want to speak to is sort of an esoteric part of the bill. I do not think anyone has spoken to it. It would allow businesses to share information to protect critical infrastructure. In the new world, that I spoke about earlier in my speech yesterday, one of the items under attack is infrastructure. Infrastructure is absolutely critical to the smooth functioning of our society, to the health of the economy and the people, and we want to protect it.
A lot of the information that is required to protect that is in private hands. The bill would allow for the cooperation and coordination of businesses to provide that private information to the public sector, so that it can be included in the emergency plans in order for our emergency plans to be comprehensive, make sense and contain all the information necessary.
Some of that information businesses would not normally give because it is protected, confidential and could help their competitors or terrorists who want to attack them. Therefore, there is a provision in the bill that, under these circumstances when it makes sense, would protect information and use it for the purpose for which it is being shared, which is to protect during emergencies.
Finally, in my last minute I would like to talk about the ability the bill gives to the Minister of Public Safety to monitor, evaluate and coordinate federal plans. All the institutions and departments must have a plan, but the reason I strongly support this is that sometimes it falls between the cracks if we do not have someone overall in charge. I will give one example. 
The Liberal government put in a policy called a rural lens which means everything that goes through the Government of Canada, every program and every new law, should be looked at through a rural lens. Deputy ministers are required to report every year on that rural lens on what success they have had in promoting things for rural Canada. The member from Prince Edward Island and myself have been great champions of this.
I have asked a number of times in committee and some of the deputy ministers did not even know about it or had no reports. That is why it is important in this bill that theMinister of Public Safety has an umbrella authority over the various plans from the federal departments to ensure they are good and that they work. 
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Yukon for his thoughtful remarks on Bill C-12.
One thing he raised was that in the north, and in fact much of the hinterland, people are faced with circumstances that we do not consider too much in urban Canada, and that is the threat of forest fires.
I know my friend is aware that I spent many years as a forest ranger in the Yukon territory. Our primary concern was fighting fires and fire management, but we also had a dual function as land use managers. The smaller communities would look to the forest service as their emergency measures operations leaders. It was really the only representation of that aspect of civil society to which they could look.
 In a small community such as Dawson City where I lived, there was the school board, the mayor and city council, a couple of RCMP officers and the forest service. When it came to emergencies, or at least emergency measures preparations, people would look to the forest service as having the best capability of implementing whatever measures may be put in their emergency measures plan.
When my colleague mentions the need for more search and rescue, et cetera, one of the things I found useful in the development of those plans, and practising the constant evening rehearsals to be ready for emergency measures, was that we needed sometimes dual purpose functions, and we ran into jurisdictional difficulties.
Does the member see in the bill any opportunity to try to cut through the jurisdictional red tape so the emergency measures team could in fact use tools, airplanes, equipment and trucks that belong to some other jurisdiction without having to deal with red tape, protocol and stepping on the toes of other people from other levels, not of government but of civil society?
[Interjection]
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member mentioned that point. This is the intent of the bill. It is a good point to raise in committee, that organizations outside of government such as the firefighting volunteer groups are not specifically mentioned in the bill, but various orders of government are. As I mentioned, it is too bad that the territories were not mentioned because in Yukon forest firefighting is now under Yukon, so it would need that coordination.
In my earlier remarks yesterday, and maybe the member was not here, I mentioned that because of the spruce budworm and global warming, forest firefighting in Yukon has more potential for disaster than ever. We have a huge swath of forest right beside one of our communities that is like a tinderbox ready to burn. This would put that community, and maybe other communities, at risk.
I agree totally with the member that we need this coordination in governments, which is in the spirit of the bill, but maybe there should be references to other organizations. There are some references to local governments, but that should be made quite clear, including the territories.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear that the member for Yukon mentioned the rural lens. 
I do not expect, and I will be speaking on it in a moment, that the Canadian government would use measures in the bill for alternative motives, but we have seen that happen in the United States. With the new regulations coming out under its inspection agency, the U.S. claims it is fighting bioterrorism and it is placing fees on agriculture products, animal and plant products. I believe it is $5.25 per truck crossing the border, $5.00 per passenger on planes, $566 for ships and then so much for a railway container. 
It is really protectionism in the United States under the guise of security. It is going to cost $77 million and Canadians are going to pay it all. Yet the new government has failed to challenge those measures in the United States to anywhere near the extent it could. It relates in part to what the member has said about the rural lens. 
Does the member see any difficulties in the bill where something similar could happen or does that just happen to the friends of the Prime Minister in the United States, who would impose those unnecessary measures on Canadians?
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.
All members of Parliament should keep in mind that any time a bill comes up, these types of things may either inadvertently or purposely be included.
To give an example of what he is saying, there is a very broad reference to military in this bill, support for plans and our allies, and that is virtually all it says. It does not say what part in the world nor does it give any definitions of the circumstances. It is great that it is in the bill, but more clarity might lead to the intent and avoid the type of abuse that the member has suggested.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, previous speakers have opened the door on any number of interesting aspects of Bill C-12. We cannot look at the context of this actually quite thin and straightforward bill in isolation. By its very nature, it has broad, expansive implications into the very fabric of how we structure ourselves in many aspects of civil society, not the least of which is the point my colleague from Malpeque just made. I thank him for doing that because it segues nicely into some of the concerns and reservations I want to raise about the bill.
We have to use an abundance of caution and be ever vigilant that the things we do in the interests of national security do not trample and interfere on some of the very values by which we define ourselves as Canadians. We also have to be abundantly cautious and use great vigilance to ensure that those who would use the bill to advance other secondary objectives be cautioned now by astute members of Parliament, doing diligence in their study of the bill, that we will not tolerate this. 
I want to stop short of impugning motives in the introduction of bills of this nature, but we can learn by example from other countries, certainly our neighbour to the south. I can say without any hesitation at all and without any fear of contradiction that the United States administration has used the national security crisis to achieve other secondary objectives, some of which have been punitive to Canada. I do not think that is telling stories out of school and it is not showing any disrespect to our American neighbours to point out that we are not idiots, we have noticed this. 
My colleague pointed out some very helpful specifics in terms of levies and fees and stuff that are administered now to Canadian shippers as they export goods to the United States. An added burden is being put on them to meet the new standards put in place by our American neighbours, under the umbrella of national security, or fear of bioterrorism or any number of enabling themes and motifs they are using in those arguments. There are a number of examples that we could use. 
We are very cognizant of personal freedoms and will not allow them to be violated, but let us be equally cautious that people are not using public fear to justify the unjustifiable in any other context. That would certainly apply to the U.S. experience of using the threat of bioterrorism to disadvantage Canadian exporters and essentially to put up what would otherwise be viewed as illegal tariffs and subject to trade sanctions or trade complaints being filed.
None of the parties that I have heard speak to the bill seem to find fault with the idea that emergency measures preparedness needs to be reviewed. The previous Liberal government in the previous Parliament had an almost identical bill, Bill C-78. With very minor tweaking and adjustments, we are seeing it reintroduced to Parliament today.
The times we are living in warrant greater scrutiny of our emergency measures preparedness. The jurisdictional question came up quite clearly in interventions from members of the Bloc. I think we can all agree, when it comes to personal safety and national safety, that there needs to be agreed upon crossover not to show disrespect for any jurisdictional boundaries, but to acknowledge that timeliness is of the essence when people are at risk or under some kind of natural or unnatural external threat.
I can speak from personal experience how, in the event of natural disasters, Canada is quite well served and quite well prepared. I will speak from personal experience in the Red River flood that affected my region as recently as 1997. I see a colleague here from the province of Manitoba from the government side. We can say, without doubt, that as we observed that freak of nature slowly inching toward us, pieces began to fall into place. I should remind people who were not there that the Red River was 50 miles wide. That is an unnatural circumstance for people. I am used to paddling on the Red River with my canoe. The Red River is usually not as far across as this chamber, so for it to be 50 miles wide and advancing relentlessly and steadily toward the city of Winnipeg, we were in a legitimate crisis in slow motion.
I suppose we could argue that perhaps we had the luxury of time to put together an effective emergency measures reaction. It was not like the ice storm that affected Ottawa where overnight the infrastructure, certainly the electrical infrastructure, of Ottawa collapsed. However, I can say with some sense of pride that the people of Ottawa had in place measures and circumstances that served the residents here very well too. I was a member of Parliament then and I watched how this city was able to react and absolutely minimize, not only the inconvenience, but the loss of life, the injury and the risk to services, to property and to people.
What I want to raise with the Red River flood, though, Mr. Speaker, if I could--I hope you feel it is in the context and order of the debate--is that there is a case to be made for collective, cooperative action in the preparation for and administration of emergency services. I cite as an example something that happened in the 1960s in Manitoba that could never happen today, and that is the digging of the Red River floodway, the largest engineering feat in history in terms of volume of earth moved, bigger than the digging of the Suez Canal. It was a public infrastructure initiative where, if we raised something of that scope and magnitude today, we would be laughed out of the room. People would say that we could not afford it, that it would be a waste of taxpayer money, that it would be a boondoggle. They would find 100 reasons to say why it should not be done and maybe they would say that we should let the private sector build it in a public-private partnership and maybe it could get done that way, but probably not because we are so timid now. 
We are timid as rabbits when it comes to doing things like building a nation and building great projects. There is no collective vision and no national dream any more. That is the guts that it took. A Conservative premier, I will give him credit, named Duff Roblin simply would not listen to the naysayers and that investment, the largest infrastructure project in the nation's history and in the world at the time, has saved the city of Winnipeg, three, four and five times over. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when $100,000 meant something but it saved billions. It saved hundreds of thousands of homes and probably thousands of lives because somebody had the guts to show some real leadership, stand up to the naysayers and say that some things are important enough that we have to invest in the future.
To this day we invite Premier Roblin to the edge of the Red River floodway and collectively thank him for being that aggressive and that stubborn and not taking no for an answer. As we speak, that floodway is being widened. We are actually digging it deeper and wider because it is the best thing we ever did as Winnipeggers.
We cannot have enough emergency measure preparedness but it takes a collective wisdom and a collective political courage to implement that kind of collective action. I can just imagine the reaction of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation if we were to here with a proposal and said that we needed, for our own well-being collectively, to undertake an initiative the scope and scale of the Red River floodway. We would be laughed out of the room. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation would set up shop right outside of here and hold a press conference and ridicule us for being a tax and spend party or something. There is justification for that kind of thing when our national well-being is at stake.
I can say too, during the flood of the century in 1997, how heartened I was by not only the mobilization of the citizenship but the mobilization of the military for non-military purposes. The same training that goes into making great soldiers and an effective military unit is applied readily to emergencies such as forest fires, floods, et cetera. No one else has that capacity, whether it is the machinery, the engineering, the technology or the sheer manpower of a couple of thousand fit people who are used to working in a coordinated effort. That is a rare thing. Who else do we look to but the military when that kind of thing takes shape?
The only person who disappointed us was the prime minister of the day when he came to view the flood lines. We were all sandbagging into the middle of the night. The prime minister of the day made his obligatory visit and got his Guccis a little wet walking into some of the sandbag areas. Somebody gave him a sandbag and he said, “What am I supposed to do with this?”, and kind of turned and walked away. We were disappointed that the only person we could not get really interested in the initiative was in fact our own PM. The rest of the electorate was out there, the mayor of Winnipeg, the premier and all the MPs were on the sandbag lines, and I think citizens were glad to see that kind of effective mobilization.
The other thing I am proud of in the city of Winnipeg, in my home riding of Winnipeg Centre, is that it is home to the only level four virology laboratory in the country. We received this in kind of a backhanded way. Back in the mid-1980s, the Mulroney government gave a CF-18 contract to Montreal, even though Winnipeg had a far better bid and a far lower price. We had everything ready to go. It was an absolute slam dunk that the CF-18 contract would come to the people of Winnipeg. However, for political reasons, as happens so often, it had to go to the province of Quebec at a higher price. It was a bad deal for the taxpayer and certainly a slap in the face to western Canada.
I suppose as a booby prize, Jake Epp, the senior minister from Manitoba at the time, brought home the federal virology lab. Quebec received the billion dollar CF-18 contracts, maintaining our jets and promoting and advancing even more its aerospace industry, and we received a disease factory plunked down in a residential neighbourhood in the middle of my riding. We were not too appreciative at the time. It was a laboratory that the city of Ottawa turned down because it did not want ebola virus and every other disease in the country in its backyard, so we wound up with it.
In retrospect, we are delighted to have this level four virology lab and the international expertise that it brings to our community. However, we were concerned about the safety aspects. I can give an example of something that is in the context of an emergency. We were not so concerned about what happened in the laboratory and in the safety of handling the world's deadliest viruses in the context of the laboratory. I have toured the place. It has thick concrete walls and it is bombproof and bulletproof. However, what we questioned was the shipping and transporting of these deadly viruses from one place to the laboratory. That was the weak link in the chain. We were guaranteed this would be done with the utmost highest protocol, that Brinks trucks would be hired and they would travel in convoys, that there would be three of them and only one would be carrying the virus, so there would be decoys in case terrorists wanted to strike the one that was carrying the virus.
What happened was that as soon as our backs were turned, this was contracted out to FedEx. During a traffic accident on the corner of Logan and William where a FedEx truck ran into another car, what spilled out of the back of the van? It was a bunch of anthrax and Newcastle disease virus, which wipes out chicken populations immediately if it gets into the atmosphere.
Anthrax by FedEx is a far cry from Brinks trucks and decoys. I almost fell off my chair. I could not believe what a violation of trust this was. At the time I said, anthrax by FedEx, what is next, ebola virus by bicycle? That would be the only thing more ridiculous than anthrax by FedEx.
We were disappointed and let down in terms of emergency measures preparedness because that could have been a catastrophe. This level four laboratory is in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. It is not on the outskirts of town and it is not in an industrial park. As far as I am from you right now, Mr. Speaker, are occupied homes in a poor end of town. I guess that was some of the thought process, that it did not really matter that much because it was just in a poor end of town. It would not happen in Tuxedo, River Heights or some affluent end of town. They would not put up with a level four disease laboratory with guys shipping anthrax by FedEx but they did not seem to have any hesitation doing it in the middle of my riding, the poorest riding in Canada.
We are conscious of these things. It is a net benefit, I suppose, to the Health Sciences Centre campus that is in the heart of my riding and that this level four disease laboratory serves a national and international function in assessing and analyzing dangerous viruses, whether it is in animals or a threat to people. I should recognize and pay tribute to Dr. David Butler-Jones and Dr. Frank Plummer, the senior officials who run our level four laboratory in Winnipeg and my comments are in no way to show disrespect for the valuable work they do. I just wish they would tighten up their protocol for shipping their bugs around my city.
The last issue I would like to raise in terms of emergency measures and in the context of Bill C-12, which was also raised by my colleague from Yukon which was very helpful, is the issue of global warming. I hope the bill acts as the enabling legislation to allow senior ministers, no matter what their jurisdiction, to contemplate, prepare for and be seized of the issue of the consequences of global warming. On television the other day, I heard a climatologist say, with some sense of pride, that in the next year or two we would be able to sail the Northwest Passage uninterrupted with no icebreakers. He said that it would be open as a shipping lane and he cited the advantage to this.
 I remind anyone who is thinking in those terms of the cautionary note of Tim Flannery, the world's leading authority on climate change, who was a guest at our convention in Quebec City not two weeks ago. He cited the fact that if we were ever to have the Northwest Passage open as a shipping lane, every other port in the world would be under four feet of water. He said that there would be no place for those ships to load and unload their product because we would be in a Noah's ark situation here. The world would be underwater and certainly coastal regions.
 I raise that perhaps as the ultimate cautionary note as we enter into an analysis of our emergency readiness as a nation. Are we ready for this onslaught that we are bringing upon ourselves with climate change? What concrete steps are ministers of the Crown taking today to prepare ourselves for what could be a self-imposed Armageddon? I am not one of those to stand around with a sign saying “the end is near”, but I say to my colleagues and friends in the House of Commons that the end is near if we do not turn ourselves around and stop this looping effect, this compounding effect of global warming that we are doing to ourselves. 
If there is any one single thing we need to do to prepare for emergencies, it is to prepare ourselves for this doom that will be upon us if we do not correct our practices, our man-made polluting of this planet to the point where it will not be habitable any more. We are soiling our own nest to the point where we will not be able to live on this planet and there is no amount of bills and legislation that we can pass that will turn that around without the political will of every minister, of everyone in authority at every level of government in the world in fact. If there has ever been an argument for world cooperation, it surely has to be to save the planet, and that transcends Bill C-12. That will need to be the motif that becomes a thread through all of our actions as elected officials.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg talked about a lot of different issues and only a very few of those really refer to the bill itself.
The bill talks about increasing the cooperation between all jurisdictions in disasters. My hon. colleague made mention of the Red River flood in 1997. It was devastating for the province of Manitoba and for my riding. I was out sand bagging. I made sure I went along with our Canadian soldiers who were also sand bagging and helping the local residents and our province in protecting our assets. We are extremely grateful for that.
 It is that type of cooperation among all jurisdictions, Manitoba, all provinces, the federal government and the municipalities, that made it happen.
In my riding just in the last two years we have had two disasters that required EMO services. We had a flash flood that went through Lester Beach, which was extremely devastating and completely unpredictable. There was no way we could have had any preventative measures in tact to prevent what happened. Cars were washed into the river and houses were lifted off their foundations and moved 20 feet or 30 feet.
This year a tornado went through Gull Lake and killed one lady. We had a lot of damage in the community. Houses were completely destroyed. Seasonal residences were completely demolished. We could not even make out what was there before.
Because of those situations we need to ensure that we strengthen the whole Emergency Measures Act. That is why I support the bill.
The member talked about the Red River floodway. The bill is also trying to address the whole issue of being preventative. He mentioned Duff Roblin, the Conservative premier of Manitoba. Back in the sixties he had the vision and the dream to build a giant ditch to divert water. I think only construction of the Panama Canal moved more earth than the Red River floodway in Manitoba to divert water around our capital region and protect the city. 
There have been some problems with that, and we have an expansion going on right now. A lot of the negative impacts are happening in my riding. We might sacrifice the city of Selkirk and historic site of Lower Fort Garry because of not taking the extra preventive measures to ensure that we have riverbank stabilization down the entire river right out to the mouth of the Red River into Lake Winnipeg.
When he is talking with his NDP colleagues back at the provincial level in Manitoba, does he feel we need to ensure that we have preventative measures in place so we are not just dealing with mitigations and trying to address things after the fact, after the damage is done, like groundwater contamination, property damage and ongoing infrastructure damage, because of not having that foresightedness?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake has a legitimate point. There is a cautionary tale for anyone who interferes with nature. The flow of a river is not something to be taken lightly. It can have adverse consequences that we might think we can control as engineers, carpenters and builders, but often we are powerless to stop. There is a legitimate caution that nothing we do should adversely affect those downstream. 
That goes back as far as the Magna Carta. One of the very first things cited in any kind of written record about how we relate to each other and govern ourselves is the rights of those downstream. Thou shalt not do something that is going to affect the water rights of one's neighbour down the stream.
The city of Selkirk has a legitimate argument as do the people of Manitoba as the Governor of North Dakota seeks to divert Devils Lake through the interbasin transfer of water into the Red River system and to pollute our beloved great inland sea, Lake Winnipeg. That is worth noting in the House of Commons in the context of an emergency measures debate as well.
The state of North Dakota is acting like a rogue state. I think it is acting more like North Korea than North Dakota in its absolute intransigence to listen to the scientists, to listen to reason, to listen to the pleas of its neighbours to the north who have a legitimate grievance. It is not allowed to violate the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act just because it has a water problem in Devils Lake, North Dakota. That lake is full of invasive species that will get into this other whole drainage basin that flows up the Red River to Lake Winnipeg and into Hudson's Bay.
It is a catastrophe waiting to happen. It is a violation against nature. It is a crime against Mother Nature to divert water in this interbasin way. I hope our emergency measures team are ready to cope with this lack of sensitivity from our American neighbours to the south. It is a pressing problem that deserves the attention of the House. I know it has the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his counterpart in the United States, Condoleezza Rice, but we had it on the table for years. 
I personally have gone to Washington with Lloyd Axworthy to appeal to American senators from those northern states and said, “Don't do this for heaven's sake. Don't commit this crime against nature”, and they continue to plough ahead with it. It is an emergency for the province of Manitoba.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Drummond.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to participate in this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The member for Ottawa Centre, then.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, has outlined for us what the parameters are when we are dealing with emergency preparedness.
When we dealt with the ice storm in Ottawa and Quebec as well, when I was volunteering to help out the army and others, one of the things that became crystal clear was that we relied upon the front line workers, the men and women, who are nurses, paramedics and people in our military, and we need to support them.
One area that concerns me greatly is the public health issue in emergency preparedness. We do not have enough public health nurses ready to go because we have abandoned public health. We need more capacity.
How can we better prepare ourselves in our communities by involving, training and building more nursing capacity?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been generally lucky that we have been relatively free of catastrophic events. I am 50 years old and very few events stand out like the Ottawa ice storm or the flood of the century in 1997 in Winnipeg. 
I am concerned as well that perhaps we are not building a culture of preparedness and not preparing in anticipation of these events. We can be sure that as climate change becomes more and more a reality, radical climatic events are going to happen more frequently. The magnitude of the ice storm itself ground down a great city in a few short hours. We can be assured that there will be similar events all over the world on a more frequent basis. There is no way to ensure against that level of devastation, but we can prepare for the human effect, and that is workers on the ground, public health workers, people who are deputized to leap into action. 
I am surprised we do not have the type of emergency measures preparation going on today like we did during the Cold War. Drills would be held now and then in classes and students would be told to dive under their desks. They were told what to do in the event of nuclear fallout. 
We do not contemplate disaster and happily go along because we are a peaceful nation and blessed with very few natural catastrophic events in terms of earthquakes, floods, ice storms and hurricanes. Let us not kid ourselves, though. We are bringing this upon ourselves, and we will realize more of these events with a vengeance as climate change becomes more of a reality.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12, which is an act to provide for emergency management. It is a very important bill.
In summary, the bill is designed to strengthen Canada's readiness to mitigate the impact of, prepare for, prevent and respond to all hazards. It really replaces the Emergency Preparedness Act of 1988 and is virtually identical to Bill C-78 introduced in 2005 by the previous government. Even though there is a new government in place, there is not much new. The Conservatives are still building on the good acts of the previous government. There are exceptions to that, such as where they sold out to big rail in terms of the Canada Transportation Act and they are selling out to big grain under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, but we will leave that for another day.
In short, the Liberal Party welcomes the government's reintroduction of the emergency management bill tabled by the Liberal government in November 2005. The introduction of the bill last year fulfilled a promise made in our national security policy of April 2004. 
The act builds on the excellent Liberal record on security since 9/11: one, an investment of over $9.5 billion to strengthen national security, to improve emergency preparedness and to contribute to international security; two, the creation of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; and three, the establishment of a national 24-7 government operations centre to coordinate federal emergency responses.
Having been a former solicitor general after 9/11, I can certainly vouch for the measures that are taken in this bill. It is a strange thing about us as a country. Canada is a great country. We are tolerant people and we have many benefits, but sometimes we take safety and security a little too much for granted. The Red River floods were mentioned earlier. There is the odd hurricane in the country. In fact, during hurricane Juan in eastern Canada I lost two barn roofs in my own operation. But those events are small compared to what happens in other countries around the world. Then we add some of the terrorist actions that are happening. In fact, the President of Afghanistan spoke about some of those activities this morning. 
We have to be vigilant on all fronts in terms of the natural hazards and in terms of the man-made hazards through terrorism and other means. As a former solicitor general I know from having seen things up close how important some of these measures that are proposed in this bill are to the safety, the security and the preparedness for emergency events within Canada.
It is important to review some of the activities that have taken place since 9/11. These measures add to that. I know the government opposite tends not to mention these, but it is important to see what we are building on as we provide greater safety and security for the country.
On October 3, 2003 the deputy prime minister of the day, John Manley, announced the smart border action plan. There was NAFTA a little earlier, but at that point in time he gave a fairly substantive report on it.
I want to outline for Canadians some of the things that have been done through that 30 point plan on which this bill actually builds. Canada and the United States had agreed to develop common standards for biometrics which both countries use and they had agreed to adopt interoperable and comparable technology to read those biometrics. That is still being worked on; progress is constantly being made in that area. There was the announcement of permanent resident cards, a single alternative inspection system, the NEXUS highway system at the border crossings. 
The amount of trade that goes on between the United States and Canada is to the tune of between $1.6 billion to $2 billion a day. We saw what happened in the wake of 9/11 when the border system virtually shut down and how it affected both economies. It is important in what we do in terms of emergency preparedness and security measures, that that commercial activity is still able to flow and that residents of both countries can feel secure with those measures in place.
As I said in a question earlier, I am extremely disappointed by the action the United States has taken with the new inspection fees. It is really disguised protectionism under the guise of security. I may talk about that later in a little more depth.
Other measures were taken in the 30 point smart action plan. There was a refugee asylum processing system, a statement of mutual understanding which would allow countries to more effectively exchange information on immigration related issues. That is the way we should be moving, with a processing system that actually looks at the facts instead of the fiction that some congressmen and senators in the United States are talking about, such as putting up the towers as if there were a major immigration system coming from Canada. There is not. For whatever reason, some people around the President of the United States like to operate on the politics of fear and try to blame Canada as if we were part of the problem. We are not. 
We have made major steps ahead, as I said, with the expenditure of $9.5 billion to ensure the security of our country, the security of our border and indeed, the security of North America.
There was agreement on a process of managing those refugees and asylum claims. We had improved a better visa policy coordination. 
Point seven in the plan was air preclearance. Probably most people in the House have taken advantage of air preclearance at several airports within Canada and the United States. If we go through preclearance, it saves time, it is better for business, it is better for people doing commercial business and it is indeed secure.
We had worked on the advanced passenger information and passenger name record. I agree that is somewhat controversial, and the Minister of Transport certainly knows how controversial it is. I will state unequivocally that even though it is controversial, it is one of those areas we have to look at it in order to give the assurance of security.
I might just move aside from the 30 points for a minute and say that one of the greatest difficulties in my experience in this whole area of security is the balancing of civil liberties and the protection of security in a country. It is a difficult area. There always will be grey areas, but we have to find that balance and it is not always easy to do.
Point nine was the joint passenger analysis units.
We established stronger measures for maritime security and ferry terminals. I have had the opportunity to see some of those in action. Containers are passed through X-ray machines to ensure there is not material in those containers that would have an impact on the country.
We have moved toward compatible immigration databases, immigration officers overseas, international cooperation between Canada and the United States and other countries. We harmonized commercial processing in a number of areas. There is still a lot more work to be done but it was a key point at the time. That was trying to provide clearances away from the border which would give a greater measure of security.
We established a number of joint facilities, common customs data, container targeting at seaports, infrastructure improvements overall, better intelligence in terms of the transportation system, and better critical infrastructure protection.
The member for  Edmonton Centre  yesterday spoke on this whole area of infrastructure. We are not only talking about roads, highways, water and sewage. In this new era we are talking about communications and related areas and food security. All those infrastructure areas have to be protected in the kind of world we live in today.
Point 22 was better aviation security. We have succeeded in doing that.
Point 23 was integrated border and management enforcement teams. We called them IBETs. There were some 14 established across the country. I have seen them operation. People in Canada and the United States can have great confidence in how those IBETs work. They bring together a cross-section of law enforcement agencies, whether it is the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the New York State Police, marine police and so on. They communicate and coordinate in a fashion that will make a difference in terms of the protection of the country's security. 
We had established joint enforcement coordination at a number of locations at a cross-border crime forum for the prevention of crimes and the protection of the security of the nation.
We moved ahead with integrated intelligence in areas that we called integrated national security enforcement teams, or INSETs, which I think moved a long way since 9/11. The security bodies, whether it be the CIA, CSIS and others, came together for coordination and cooperation.
I see that time is passing, so I will just mention the other points by name.
There was the agreement to continue cooperation in the removal of deportees; counter-terrorism legislation; freezing of terrorist assets; joint training and exercises between the two countries; biosecurity; and science and technology cooperation.
Those were some of the advances that have in fact been made by the previous government, an expenditure of $9.5 billion. This bill moves forward in some of those areas. The revised act grants new powers to the Minister of Public Safety to exercise national level leadership in emergency management in four areas.
First, coordinating federal responses to emergencies in Canada and the United States. It is extremely important in those areas on this continent that our ministers responsible act concisely and coordinate their efforts. 
Second, establishing standardized elements for the Government of Canada in terms of emergency plans. As a country we need to know what our plan is before it happens. That is extremely important.
Third, monitoring and evaluating emergency management plans of federal institutions. If there was an incident in this country, that is absolutely necessary, whether it is a natural, man-made or terrorist act.
Fourth, enhancing cooperations with other jurisdictions through common standards and information sharing. We have made massive moves ahead in that area of cooperation and coordination.
I want to close though in terms of one of the areas that I am disappointed in, as I said earlier. We can see the measures that the Government of Canada has taken in our country and in coordination with other countries around the world, and especially in coordination and cooperation with the United States, to ensure that we live on a safe and secure North American continent. 
Yet, the Americans have imposed these fees under the guise of security, which I think are protectionist measures. I am disappointed in that because when we look at the record, this country stands at the front of the line in terms of security and emergency preparedness. This bill will in fact assist in that regard and I support it.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. member:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Private Members' Business
Canada Labour CodeCatherine Bell:  moved that Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand in the House to debate C-295, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of strikebreakers
Strikebreakers, scabs and replacement workers, call them whatever, they have no place in modern labour negotiations. The issue has been coming up in the House for well over 20 years. Similar bills have come close to being passed that would eliminate the use of strikebreakers.
In 2002 and 2005, anti-scab bills were lost by only a handful of votes. It is time for this Parliament to deliver what Canadian workers have been asking for: fairness, justice and equality.
I would like to recognize the work that our party has done over the years for labour rights in Canada. We have fought, since our inception, to bring equity and fairness to workers because what is good for workers is good for all Canadians. 
The NDP understands that workers' rights are human rights, that workers have fought for and won the right to form unions, to bargain collectively, to withdraw their labour to achieve gains in the workplace, or to stop destructive practices.
Personally, I feel very strongly about this amendment. Working in the labour movement for over 12 years, I have seen firsthand the devastation that scabs have on a workforce and in communities. I have seen families torn apart and alienated over many years because of an ideology that does not support workers' rights. 
Fair wages, a safe workplace, health care and pensions are just some of the things that the labour movement and collective bargaining have achieved. Many of these things are now taken for granted, gains that our forefathers and mothers fought for and even died for, so that future generations would have better working conditions and better lives.
The bill that we are debating today is fundamental to protecting those hard-fought gains. The bill contains a consequence when workers' rights are ignored. Without real deterrents the use of strikebreakers will continue to erode the legacy of generations of past workers.
The bill is similar to another private member's bill currently making its way through the House. I would like to thank my hon. colleagues from the Bloc for the work that they are doing, and have done in the past, standing up for working women and men in Quebec. The province of Quebec understands and respects the rights of workers and has had anti-scab legislation for almost 30 years.
I hope my hon. colleagues will support this bill and give workers across the country the real protection that they deserve.
 C-295 is a much stronger amendment to the Canada Labour Code. It would prohibit the use of replacement workers and it has a real deterrent, a consequence if replacement workers are used in a strike or lockout. Without deterrents that will make employers think twice before breaking the law, the amendment is less effective and leaves workers without protection.
I know there will be arguments from other hon. members who disagree with this amendment, so let me say how these changes will benefit workers and their employers, their workplaces, the community and the economy. 
Currently, 97% of collective agreements are negotiated without a strike or lockout. That is because most employers know they have a legal responsibility to negotiate with their unionized employees. However, when that does not happen, when an abusive employer ignores that responsibility and strikebreakers are called in, tensions rise in the workplace and on the picket line. Both sides generally get dug into their positions and the strike or lockout is left to drag on. The scabs are generally caught in the middle of what becomes a volatile situation and are often used by the employer.
These situations leave lasting scars on workplaces and communities and sometimes never fully heal. The cost in reduced or lost production can have devastating effects on local economies for many years to come.
By eliminating the practice of scab labour, we are likely to see the amount of strikes and lockouts drop and those that do happen will not last as long.
In Quebec, for example, since adopting anti-scab legislation in its labour code, it has gone from an average of 39 days lost due to strikes down to 15 days. In B.C. there was a 50% drop in the number of days lost in the first year the law was introduced there. In Ontario, where it had anti-scab law in place for only two years, there were similar results.
Shorter lockouts and strikes mean the impact of work stoppages on families and communities is lessened. As strikes and lockouts drag on, other businesses suffer. Workers on strike or locked out do not have the money to spend that they once had. This can have a prolonged impact on small and single industry towns and that impact could last for many years after the dispute.
Scabs are also generally exploited. They tend to be desperate, in need of a job, and can be paid less than unionized workers to do the same job. They have no job security. The conditions they work in are generally worse as health and safety standards, hours or work, as well as other conditions of the collective agreement do not apply to them. 
By lowering working standards we are putting workers' safety and possibly other lives in jeopardy. Scab workers bring out the worst in employers and employees. Their use creates strife and malice. Those who do cross a picket line are not quickly forgotten.
 C-295 would go a long way toward reducing tension and violence on a picket line. Strikes and lockouts are hard enough without watching day after day someone else goes in to do someone's job. Sometimes tensions and frustrations build until it is expressed in violence. 
There is evidence that domestic violence increases during periods of labour unrest. While violence is never excusable, it helps to understand the root cause so we can act to prevent this type of behaviour. 
By ending scab labour we will create a more peaceful picket line. Resentment on both sides will not be as strong and therefore productivity and company loyalty will return sooner, making the employee-employer relationship much more healthy and productive.
Others have argued that the current labour code already deals with replacement workers. They point out that the current law, subsection 94(2.1), which reads in part:
 No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit-- 
It goes on to state that this current language was created through consultation between labour and management and is therefore fair and balanced. 
However, subsection 94(2.1) explicitly allows the use of scabs, replacement workers, as long as the employer is not undermining the collective bargaining process. By their very nature, scabs undermine collective bargaining. 
When they are used, there is no incentive for employers to go back to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith with their employees. If there is no ability to use replacement workers at all, the ability to undermine the bargaining process would be diminished.
The Ekati diamond mine strike in the Northwest Territories is a recent example of how employers like BHP Billiton, a multi-billion dollar a year company, took advantage of the current legislation. During negotiations, BHP tried to remove articles that had previously been negotiated and it took the union months to present its case in front of the labour relations board even though BHP was in clear violation of the labour code. 
The company continued to operate with replacement workers and there was no significant penalty for trying to undermine the collective bargaining process. Without serious deterrents or consequences there is nothing stopping this type of behaviour from happening again.
Another recent lockout of Telus employees that was allowed to drag on for months causing tension on both sides could have been a lot shorter if the company did not have the ability to use replacement workers. I salute all those workers who hung in there to maintain the gains that they made under very trying circumstances.
We know this legislation can work. In Quebec, there has been virtual silence from employers whenever the labour code is up for review. In my home province of B.C. in 2002, the government left the anti-scab clauses alone in its rewrite of the provincial labour code. It knows, as employers do, that anti-scab legislation works. 
Progressive changes at the federal level will send a strong signal to the remaining provincial governments to introduce bills to end the use of replacement workers.
Canada's federal labour laws cover one out of every ten jobs across the country, jobs that play a critical role in our national economy. In today's world, reducing the risk of disruption at our borders, airports and telecommunications networks is vital. This debate has gone on for well over 20 years. I am sure that if we listen closely, we can still hear the sound of the previous debates echoing in the chamber.
As parliamentarians, we must come together and say, no, to the arcane and destructive practices of using scabs, replacement workers and strike breakers. We must do what is in the best interests of working families. We must support this crucial amendment to the Canada Labour Code.
Mrs. Sylvie Boucher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, does the member know that only two provinces in Canada have enacted anti-scab legislation, and after 30 years there are still only two?
Is this because it works so well? Ontario enacted such legislation in 1993, then had to repeal it in 1995.
[Interjection]
Catherine Bell: Mr. Speaker, yes, I recognize that only two provinces in the country have anti-scab legislation, but Ontario did not have to get rid of its legislation. It could have kept it and I think it would have seen a lot less friction in its negotiations and strikes.
I know many workers in the provinces are working very hard and lobbying their provincial governments as well as the federal government to bring anti-scab legislation to every provincial labour code and to this federal body as well.
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the hon. member for Vancouver Island North said in her presentation. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I agree that the worker replacement legislation in British Columbia has worked very well.
She properly recognizes that replacement workers are often vilified, exploited and mistreated in many ways. I would very respectfully ask the member to not refer to replacement workers as scabs. She talks of scab labour. This is a highly derogatory term, which I believe, in the interest of calm and respectful relationships between employers and employees, should not be used when referencing employee replacement legislation.
[Interjection]
Catherine Bell: Mr. Speaker, I take the point of the hon. member opposite.
Mr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Vancouver Island North on her bill.
My question is this: could she underline the importance of an anti-scab law to the social climate in labour-management negotiations during a labour dispute?
[Interjection]
Catherine Bell: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well about labour disputes. I believe he is very much in support of anti-scab legislation as we have talked about this. Where tensions already exist in the workplace and they come to a head, one side decides to either lock out their employees or the employees decide to walk out. Those tensions carry over into the community, homes and families. As I mentioned, there has been a documented increase in domestic violence and also violence on picket lines.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, first, we are on the threshold of quite an important moment in the House, with two very important bills on this same matter in front of the House. There is actually the possibility, despite the opposition of a minority government, that the House might do the right thing and put in place laws to protect workers in the contract negotiation process.
I want to congratulate my friends from the Bloc.
They introduced their own bill. It is very important. We also have ours.
The New Democrats have been behind this legislation for many years and we look forward to its passage in the House.
I would ask the member to reflect on some of the impacts, if she has the time to comment, or maybe other members can comment later in the debate. I have stood on picket lines as bus loads of workers were rushed through, workers who were being exploited by the plant owners. These contacts are absolutely terrible and do not need to be in place nor do they need to happen. It is time for worker protection now and this law can do it.
[Interjection]
Catherine Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have also been on a picket line and have seen replacement workers go in to do our jobs. It is very stressful situation, but it is also demeaning to the replacement workers and everyone who is involved in the situation.
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver Island North for becoming involved in the democratic process and for making the effort to introduce a bill. However, I do not share her opinion, and I will explain why. 
The Government of Canada carefully examined Bill C-295 and determined that we cannot support this bill, which amends the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers in sectors under federal jurisdiction.
The Government of Canada reached this conclusion after taking a careful look at the bill and in light of two very basic principles. First, does the proposed legislation maintain the fragile balance needed in labour-management relations, which are so vital to Canada's economic and social performance? Second, is there evidence to support the idea that such a law would benefit workers? The answer to these two questions is no.
Labour-management relations have repercussions on both management and unions, and any law that concerns those relations must take both parties' aspirations into account. I would just like to mention that the repercussions of labour-management relations go far beyond the two parties' concerns. I will explain.
Labour-management relations affect Canada's economic and social performance. They affect production, employment, salary gains, profits, individual incomes, productivity and competitiveness, to name just a few of the main aspects of an economic and social system. A government must keep this broader picture in mind when making appropriate laws in the area of labour-management relations. There is a basic principle that should always be taken into account. This principle calls for a balance between the aspirations of unions and those of management and requires that the greater national interest always be kept in mind.
The second principle—the principle of evidence—is equally important. Before a law is amended, there should be clear evidence that the change will be beneficial. What is important here is balance. The current system is in line with the two principles I have described.
The Canada Labour Code was amended in 1999, barely seven years ago, in an attempt to modernize our legislation and improve collective bargaining. During consultations, balance was achieved, and it was approved by unions and employers alike. 
In fact, both sides presented legitimate arguments regarding the issue to be considered and, in a fair and transparent manner, the government took the time to examine all arguments before enacting the legislation, which, still to this day, respects the interests of both parties as well as national interests.
The provisions regarding replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code that were enacted in 1999 are balanced, work well, and do not need to be amended. The current provisions reflect the approach agreed upon by stakeholders within the unions following extensive consultation when Part I of the Canada Labour Code was amended in 1999. The current provisions take into account not only the interests of those two sides, but also national interests.
Bear in mind that this legislation regulates the federal private sector, which includes all the main industries of the infrastructure that ensures the proper functioning of our economy, such as air, rail, sea and ground transportation, to name a few. For those who may not be familiar with the details of the current system, allow me to explain how the existing legislation brings a balanced approach to the issue of replacement workers.
Current provisions do not impose a general prohibition on replacement workers, but they do ban the use of replacement workers if the intent is to undermine a union's representational capacity. 
The employees in a union or an employee association, if they feel wronged, can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board if they believe the employer is indeed using an unfair labour practice.
The Canada Industrial Relations Board has the mandate and expertise to resolve such problems, which they review quite quickly.
What are the problems with this bill? Allow me to explain how the situation would change if this bill were enacted. If passed, this bill would disrupt the balance of the interests, a disruption that would hinder the effectiveness and efficiency of the collective bargaining process.
The main economic leverage of the unions during the collective bargaining process is their right to strike. The employer's countervailing power is not the right to a lockout; it is the right to try for a short period to continue to operate its business with a certain limited capacity during a work stoppage until the problems are resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Such is the true test of the economic force that stems from the results of the appropriate collective bargaining for the economic situation of the day.
A total ban on the use of replacement workers would paralyze the economic right of employers to operate in a slow economy and could lead them, unfortunately, to structure their business so as to reduce their dependence on permanent employees for fear of being vulnerable.
This would be inconsistent with the workers' interests and would undermine the fragile balance currently contained in our labour legislation.
The other principle is that of evidence. As I mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no evidence that the proposed change in the bill would help workers. 
Allow me to address some essential variables that are clearly important for the workers. 
First, there is no evidence that legislation on replacement workers reduces the number of work stoppages. In fact, Quebec continues to have many more work stoppages than Ontario, which does not ban the use of replacement workers. For example, in 2005, Quebec had twice as many work stoppages as Ontario and four times as many as in the federal sector.
Second, there is no evidence that legislation on replacement workers means work stoppages are shorter. For example, the average duration of work stoppages in Quebec was 47 days compared to 38 in Ontario, between 2003 and 2005.
Third, there is no proof that legislation governing replacement workers would reduce the average duration of work stoppages. For example, despite Quebec legislation to that effect, the average work stoppage in that province rose from an average length of 37 days, for the 1975-1977 period, to an average of 47 days for the 2003-2005 period.
Fourth, there is no proof that legislation governing replacement workers reduces the number of days of work lost. For example, Quebec lost 1.5 times the number of working days lost in Ontario, on a comparable basis, during the same period of 2003 to 2005.
Finally, there is no proof that replacement worker legislation has any effect on salaries. For example, Ontario does not have such legislation and British Columbia does; in both provinces, wage settlements in 2005 were marginally lower than in Quebec.
Thus, there is no evidence indicating that prohibiting the use of replacement workers has any of the alleged benefits for workers. First, there are no fewer work stoppages; second, work stoppages that do occur are not any shorter; and third, it has no visible effect on the number of days lost or the amount of salary increases.
To conclude, I would like to reaffirm that principles should dictate our strategic response: the principles of national interests and evidence that justifies the amendment being sought. In both cases, there is no justification for amending the law.
Today, union relations in the federal private sector are the best they have ever been. Last year, over 95% of conflicts governed by the Canada Labour Code were resolved without work stoppages.
Most federally-regulated employers do not hire replacement workers. In many cases, managers or other employees excluded from negotiations are reassigned in order to maintain operations.
Consequently, the Government of Canada cannot support this bill as it does not respect the two major principles for legislative reform: it is not based on evidence and it has no benefit to the national economy.
Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, replacement workers.
The House may find that it is experiencing a bit of déjà vu, as the House is also considering Bill C-257, a bill with the same title, same principle and same goal. Nonetheless, I am pleased to speak today and address this important labour issue.
I have a bit of a different perspective than most members on labour issues. I grew up in eastern Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. The House is familiar with the strife, fighting and the unrest that existed in many former Warsaw Pact countries. The transition to communism brought much upheaval to communities all across eastern Europe. We all had to make significant lifestyle changes while living under its powerful grip. Thankfully, my family came to Canada in the 1960s. We came to a land of peace, social security and balance. I am shaped by my childhood experiences, as we all are, and I do not take the social cohesion and solidarity we enjoy in this country for granted.
Peaceful relations between employers and workers are the norm in Canada. This was the case in the 1960s and it still is today. We must do what we can to ensure that we continue to enjoy social security as well as labour, peace and stability.
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines economy as the state of a country or area in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money. We often equate the economy with finances but it is much more than that. It is a human construct of perimeters that include a whole range of human activities.
 A stable economy, in my view, brings with it peace, security and an environment in which people may gain a livelihood. People may work, enjoy leisure time, spend time with families and friends, pursue hobbies and engage in sports, academics or whatever they may choose.
No one should underestimate the influence of the labour movement on our day to day activities and our economy in the above sense. Peace and stability in the labour movement ensures that we may enjoy our lives to the fullest extent possible. 
I grew up in an environment where this was not possible because of the power of the Communist dogma and the labour unrest and discontent that it entailed. The tensions were high between the working class and the government. Trust me when I say that this is not a situation in which anyone should want to find himself or herself. That is why I chose to speak today.
 An act that restricts replacement workers from being hired during a strike or lockout is important. It is important for workers, for employers and, ultimately, for all Canadians.
Anti-replacement worker legislation is presently on the books in British Columbia and Quebec. This is an important policy for ensuring that rights are respected and all stakeholders are brought to the table. Such legislation may help to end strikes or lockouts sooner. It can help bring people together to make compromises and ensures an end to the work disruption, which comes at a later time.
Anti-replacement worker legislation is about encouraging all players to come together to find common ground and find the solution. A lockout or strike inevitably entails tension, hard feelings and stress between workers and management. We must seize the opportunity to help reduce tensions and bring the parties together on some sort of equal footing.
The principle of this legislation and Bill C-257 allows the Canada Labour Code to be a progressive document. We have a duty as parliamentarians to look after both the interests of workers and employers. We can best do this by respecting human rights, ensuring an inclusive environment and a level playing field for all.
I have spent the last few minutes speaking in support of the principle of the bill. It is unfortunate, though, that the House has to deal with Bill C-295. We already have another legislative proposal, Bill C-257 on the order paper. I question why the hon. member for Vancouver Island North introduced Bill C-295 after an almost identical bill was introduced just 13 days prior to her own bill.
As a result, I question the efficiency of the House having to deal with Bill C-295. It would be much more efficient and more conducive to realize the goal of the legislation if we were to all work together and urge our colleagues to support Bill C-257 which was already on the order paper. This way the House could have spoken with one voice on this matter in a much more focused fashion.
Even the leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress want to see one piece of legislation because it means a better chance of something actually getting passed in the House. With anti-replacement legislation already on the order paper, this would have been a once in a lifetime opportunity for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. As she knows, private members do not often get the opportunity to bring the issue that matters to them most to the floor of the House. 
As I was lucky to be number eight in the private members' draw, I put a motion on rural route mail delivery before the House. In my view, she could have worked with the member for Gatineau on the replacement worker legislation and introduced another bill or motion on another important issue in her riding. After all, every constituency has several matters that deserve attention. In that way she could have had her anti-replacement worker legislation and addressed another subject of importance to her constituents.
For that reason, I find it very difficult to support Bill C-295. I support the principle but, with another similar bill ahead of it in the queue, Bill C-257, it just does not make sense, from the viewpoint of efficiency, for the House and it is not in the interest of employer-labour relations. 
Let us put our support behind workers and employers in a focused fashion and speak with one voice. A legislative proposal of this kind has been before the House several times before. Let us work together in a concrete fashion, like we are urging employers and workers to do, and get Bill C-257 to committee so it can be further studied and we can hear from stakeholders and experts in the field.
I have a riding that is very much engaged with the Canadian economy. A number of head offices and headquarters are located in Oak Ridges—Markham and I have a very low unemployment rate. As a matter of fact, I am pleased to host a business seminar in my riding. 
On October 11 in Markham, Public Works and Government Services Canada will be doing a seminar presentation on how to do business with the Government of Canada. I am pleased to host this seminar which would be useful for any enterprise in attempting to promote its goods and services to the Government of Canada.
I congratulate members for raising the issue of replacement workers in the House and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the debates that follow.
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the NDP member for Vancouver Island North, for her presentation and clarifications. I especially want to thank her for introducing this anti-scab bill.
As hon. members are aware, last June, the Bloc Québécois, represented by my colleague from Gatineau, introduced Bill C-257 in this House. This bill truly prohibits replacement workers, because the existing Canadian legislation does not.
At present, part III of the Canada Labour Code prohibits replacement workers, but an employer just has to keep negotiating with a union, or pretend to be negotiating, in order to hire as many replacement workers as it wants.
This is the tenth time the Bloc Québécois has introduced an anti-scab bill in this House. Some bills died on the order paper, while others were not votable. The second-last bill was defeated by 18 votes and the last bill, in 2005, by 12 votes. We intend to carry the vote in late October. We will do everything in our power to win it.
This House can see that we are in good shape to win the vote on this bill, because the NDP will support us. Moreover, every Liberal member who has spoken in this House has promised to support us. Things are looking good, and we are confident that our Liberal colleagues will eventually decide as a group, this time publicly and officially, to support both the Bloc Québécois bill and the NDP bill.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of improving conditions for workers, who make a vital contribution to our society's economic well-being and quality of life. Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will support our NDP colleague's bill.
However, because Bill C-257 will be put to a vote first and will pass, we trust that it will not be necessary to hold a second vote on a nearly identical bill. There are slight differences between the two bills, and I would have liked the member for Vancouver Island North to describe them, because our bill seems more comprehensive and appears to cover a greater variety of situations. That said, we support Bill C-295 introduced by the NDP.
The benefits of a bill like this one are well known. Currently, there are two classes of workers in Quebec, one of which falls under the Quebec labour code. They have the right to very effective anti-scab legislation that makes for shorter, less violent disputes and contributes to a more positive work environment. This is perfectly clear because Quebec has had legislation in place since 1977; the facts are obvious.
I would like to cite a few statistics, but one has only to look to see the situation clearly. Anyone who watches TV news reports or reads the newspapers will have noted that over the past 30 years, the longest, most violent, most difficult strikes, those that produce the most arduous labour disputes, are the ones that take place within organizations that fall under federal jurisdiction.
I would like to try to refresh the minister's memory. Vidéotron: an extremely violent strike that lasted 10 months during which many Vidéotron facilities were vandalized. Sécur: more vandalism and another long and difficult dispute that lasted three months.
Cargill: 38 months—that is more than three years. This conflict caused wounds to the community of Baie-Comeau that have yet to heal.
The Radio-Nord Communications strike lasted nearly two years—22 months, to be precise. My favourite—if I can call it that—because it was the most ridiculous of them all, was the labour dispute at radio station CHNC in Bonaventure. It lasted three years. After two years, the 12 replacement workers demanded membership in the union.
Clearly, this is senseless. The replacement worker option leads to just the kind of difficulties and absurd situations as those the Bonaventure radio station experienced. The minister stated his point of view, but I do not agree at all.
The first time that he spoke in this House against the Bloc Québécois' proposed bill, he referred to studies and analyses conducted by the Montreal Economic Institute and the Fraser Institute. Those analyses were strange, to say the least, because they were based on outdated information—the figures were from 1960 to 1999. The studies had been conducted in very large businesses, although the Quebec economy is based primarily on SMEs. There are data much more recent than those of 1999. On the strength of the Fraser Institute study, the Minister of Labour had argued that there was less investing in those provinces that have anti-scab legislation. 
We were quick to point out that those two studies made no sense and that investing depends on many other factors besides anti-scab legislation. In any case, the statistics we see do not correspond to this argument.
He found other arguments to justify the fact that he was against the bill. In 1991, the Minister of Labour voted to support an anti-scab bill. I would point out that, at the time, he was a member of the same party, but he had the interests of the workers in his riding at heart. He represents the riding of Jonquière—Alma, which has one of the highest degree of union representation of any riding in Quebec, if not all of Canada. 
How is it, then, that he supported anti-scab legislation a few years ago, but he no longer supports it now?
On May 1, 2006, he replied to me in this House that, being theMinister of Labour, he now had to consider the issue from a Canadian perspective. It was very interesting, because he seemed to be in agreement. In his introduction, he said that it was desirable in Quebec, because of its distinct society. I do not agree with that either, because I believe we are a nation. He chose to translate it by "distinct society". Thus, he was saying that Quebec is a distinct society and that anti-scab legislation is part of its traditions, but since he was now a minister, he had to view things from a Canadian perspective. 
Is it possible that the Minister of Labour has cashed in his social conscience for a limousine? Would that be possible? I ask the question because it is just too incredible. In 1991, he agreed and today he no longer does because he is the minister. 
Does this mean that he would agree if he were a mere MP today? Imagine that the member for Jonquière—Alma, Minister of Labour, truly wishes to defend the interests of the workers in his riding. Then should he not, in caucus and cabinet, seek to convince his colleagues and the ministers of the Conservative Party of the pertinence of an anti-scab bill for which he voted in 1991 and which, he believes, is part of Quebec's traditions? That is what he said last May.
Now he only sees the disadvantages of this legislation. He says it is not based on proof and that it has no advantages. I will not repeat each of his arguments, but it is impossible that there are no advantages. It is impossible that there has been such a law in Quebec for 30 years that has no advantages for workers or for industry. The latter are not complaining and have adapted quite well to this law. I doubt they would go so far as to promote it but they are living quite well with it.
It is an exaggeration to say that there is not a single advantage; it means that it is insignificant.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate.
I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North for introducing the bill. Those who know her background will know how proud she is, like myself, to be a product of the Canadian labour movement. She carries those values and important priorities with her to this place. That is why I know that she feels so good about bringing forward this legislation.
The fact there are two pieces of legislation, we can talk about a red herring. We barely lost the vote the last time by a handful of votes which were primarily Liberals. Conservatives were not really expected to be sympathetic to workers and their needs, so there is no shock there. We are very much like-minded with the Bloc on this issue in terms of believing this is important for working people. The Liberals put themselves forward as a party that supposedly cares about workers and yet they divided on this issue. There were enough Liberals opposed that it lost. 
The fact that there are two bills here means that we are going to get two hours to talk about this issue and to put the matter forward. Members of the Canadian Labour Congress are here today and are watching very closely. We intend to make sure that the bill carries this time, but if it is not this time, it will be the time after that, or the time after that, or after that, or after that. This fight will not stop until this legislation is brought in and the workers of the country are protected the way they should be.
That is why the member is proud to bring the bill to the House. That is why I am proud to stand here and lend my voice and precious vote to this issue.
Let us also deal with another little bugaboo that is out there. I understand some people do not like the term “scabs”. I appreciate that. It is a vulgar word. It puts terrible images in one's mind. It is a horrible thing to call someone. But let me tell the House, a scab is a scab is a scab. When people take workers' jobs when those workers are fighting to have a decent income so they can put food on the table and take care of their families, those other people deserve to be called scabs. I will always call them scabs. We are not backing off on that.
Let us tackle the issue of whether or not this legislation would do all kinds of damage. If we listen to some we would swear the whole economic roof of the country is going to cave in.
For 30 years it has not just been the PQ in charge in Quebec. There have been Liberals. Of course, we all know that is a nice euphemistic term for all the right wingers under one umbrella. In fact, the current Liberal premier used to be a Progressive Conservative. That was back when there were progressive-type Conservatives. That is a little different. Nonetheless he is very much on the right wing of the political landscape in Canada. Does that premier say that he is going to pull this legislation or change it? No.
What about British Columbia, the other province that has this legislation? It is the same thing, Liberal. Everyone in B.C. who is not an NDPer becomes a Liberal. Did they pull that out when they did a major wrecking job, in my opinion, with major reforms to the labour bill in B.C.? Did they change this? No.
For all the bogeymen that former premier of Ontario Mike Harris used to talk about this legislation containing, in 1994, the first full year of the anti-scab legislation in Ontario, we had record levels of investment in the manufacturing sector in Ontario. One of the most highly unionized sectors in all of Ontario under anti-scab legislation, under an NDP government, and we had record capital investment in the year 1994.
If this legislation did as much harm as everyone says, it would not last another day in Quebec. It would not last another day in B.C. It would not have shown record investment in Ontario. Those are all bogeymen and red herrings meant to deny workers their rights under this bill because quite frankly, the employers do not want it. That is what this is all about.
The other big bugaboo we hear on this issue is that it makes for a fair fight. If the workers decide they are not going to work, it seems reasonable that the employer should be able to hire people to replace them; fair is fair. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of what is fair. 
The inability of workers to earn a wage is their pressure to get back to the bargaining table. The economic pressure of companies not being able to operate and make money brings them to the table. That is the equilibrium that is not right here because while the worker has no ability to earn that income, if the employer can bring in scabs to do the work, then there is no fight. It is a slaughter because economically the company keeps going. 
We cannot equate a company's ability or inability to survive economically with moms or dads who have been on the picket line for five or six months. They show up on the picket line at dawn, having just had coffee with their spouse, and try to figure out how they will tell their kids there will not be any presents at Christmas.
I see some of the Conservatives snickering. I am fascinated that they find that funny. 
They should go on a picket line where the people have been on strike for four months and there are scabs going in to do their jobs and let us see how many chuckles they get out of that. It is disgraceful. 
There is nothing more frightening than being on the picket line after months and months, and not being able to pay bills or meet daily requirements and not know what tomorrow will bring. Then there are people going in every day, taking their jobs and guaranteeing they will still be on that picket line the next day. 
Do we wonder why there is violence on the picket line? It is not radicals or union goons who create the violence. It is ordinary working people who finally snap under the pressure because they just cannot face going home another day with no answer as to how they will buy the food they need. It is that basic.
Sometimes some people in this place get a little distant from that real world. That is the real world with millions of Canadians. All they want, all that we want to ensure is that they have the decent protection of labour laws that make it a fair fight. That is all they want. They want to make it a fair fight. 
We should give those workers their opportunity to have the best collective agreement that can be fairly negotiated between them and their employers. However, as long as we permit a corporation or a company to continue to operate by bringing in scabs, then we as a nation, with our laws, are imposing a huge injustice on those workers. 
Another reason to do this, if we believe in it, is that we only have it in two provinces. That is a good reason to pass it nationally, so those people fighting for it in the other provinces have something to point to. If they can say that we have a national law which is good enough for the national Government of Canada, then it ought to be good enough for their province or their territory. We would be showing leadership and be leading by example.
Let me conclude by saying that this is not asking for a lot. It really is not. That is why it keeps coming back. That is why the Canadian Labour Congress puts its precious dollars into these campaigns. It is all about fairness. If we believe in economic fairness, then we want to believe that every Canadian is entitled to be protected by this legislation, not just those in the provinces of B.C. and Quebec but all Canadians. That is what this place is about, fairness for Canadians, and we have the power. 
I implore a handful of Liberals, which is probably what we need right now, to change their minds and their last vote. Maybe they did it because they were government and it was party whipping or whatever. They should find any excuse. But please, I hope they search their hearts and their conscience, and realize that the precious vote they have been given can make a world of difference, a lifetime of difference, to people who otherwise do not have a voice.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:32 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)